Nuclear Crisis

[Rasputin]

Iran resolves plutonium issues under atom pact: IAEA

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has resolved U.N. questions about tests with plutonium, a key fuel for atomic bombs, and the International Atomic Energy Agency considers the matter closed, according to the text of an IAEA-Iran accord released on Monday.

It would be the first major issue relating to the scope of Iran's disputed nuclear program closed by the U.N. nuclear watchdog in a four-year investigation stonewalled up to now, with other questions to be settled within the next few months.

Iran and the IAEA reached a deal on August 21 meant to clarify questions about indications of illicit attempts to make atomic bombs in Iran's declared drive for peaceful nuclear energy -- suspicions that helped lead to U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

The plan's other goal is to ensure regular, effective access for IAEA inspectors to Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant where it plans industrial production of nuclear fuel.

But Western diplomats said the plan was flawed for not committing Iran to resume observing the IAEA's Additional Protocol, which permits wider-ranging, short-notice inspections of sites not declared to be nuclear.

Western powers embroiled in a standoff with Iran over its refusal to heed U.N. resolutions demanding it stop nuclear work say there is no way to rule out the risk Iran might have a covert military nuclear facility without the Protocol in place.

And the plan also declares that once Iran had clarified the issues listed, the IAEA would declare there were "no remaining questions and ambiguities" about Iran's past activity, a gesture analysts called problematic without more sweeping inspections.

Iran has insisted that it seeks only electricity, not explosives, from enriched uranium.

The plan's text said IAEA officials judged last week that information given by Iran this summer abut its plutonium experiments was consistent with inspectors' findings.

"Thus this matter is resolved. This will be communicated officially by the Agency to Iran through a letter," it said, without specifying exactly how suspicions were defused.

Iran and the IAEA also agreed to forge a legally binding accord governing inspections at the expanding, underground Natanz enrichment complex by the end of September.

SHADOWY CENTRIFUGE RESEARCH

Iran would then explain shadowy efforts to build advanced P-2 centrifuges, which can enrich uranium 2-3 times as fast as the outmoded, breakdown-prone P-1 model it now uses. Iran committed to resolving the P-2 issue by November.

Iran committed to settling questions surrounding particles of weapons-grade enriched uranium found in Tehran's Technical University once the centrifuge matter was closed.

Other questions about Iranian activity to be closed, but without a deadline spelled out in the plan, included:

* What Iran did with a black-market document in Iran's possession describing how to machine uranium metal into hemisphere shapes suitable for the core of a bomb.

* Western intelligence about secret, administrative links between uranium processing, high explosives tests and a missile warhead design. Iran agreed, "as a sign of goodwill and cooperation," to examine the evidence that it previously rejected as "politically motivated and baseless allegations."

The IAEA has touted the plan as a "milestone" for having secured Iranian agreement to a timetable for transparency.

But a Western diplomat accredited to the IAEA said a weakness of the plan was its failure to spell out steps Iran would take to provide access "to people, places and documentation" needed for closure.

"The IAEA's (35-nation) board of governors has an obligation to ensure that, apart from resolving outstanding issues, confidence in Iran's nuclear program is rebuilt -- and that will take time, beyond December, and an Additional Protocol."

U.S. nuclear analyst David Albright told Reuters: "This plan looks problematic. Nothing in Iran justifies the IAEA pulling its punches without the Additional Protocol. You should never give up the right to ask further questions and follow up."

[Rasputin]

Britain warns Iran of new UN resolution

LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown reiterated Tuesday that London will support a new UN resolution against Iran if Tehran does not curb its nuclear programme.

Speaking two days after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had achieved a key target in its atomic drive, Brown said there was evidence that international pressure was working.

"It is still my belief that the process we have started...which could of course lead to a third UN resolution...is the right process," he told his monthly press conference in London.

"There is evidence that it has been working in the flow of information to the energy authorities. We will continue to work for that process to be major means by which we prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons."

And he added: "We should focus on how the process can continue to move forward, but if necessary we will support a third UN resolution on this matter."

The United States accuses Tehran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons -- an allegation vehemently denied by the Islamic republic -- and has never ruled out taking military action against it.

Iran agreed a timetable with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month to answer outstanding questions over its atomic drive, in a move that is expected to stave off the threat of sanctions for several months.

Iran warned on Sunday it would "reconsider" its cooperation with the UN atomic agency if the Security Council imposes a third set of sanctions over its contested nuclear programme.

Also Sunday, President Ahmadinejad said Iran had achieved a key target in its atomic drive by operating more than 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges in defiance of world powers.

In a German magazine interview Monday, the head of the IAEA warned that Tehran is facing its "last chance" to resolve its nuclear dispute by the end of the year.

Washington has never ruled out taking military action against Tehran, and its tone has sharpened again over the past week with President George W. Bush, warning that Iran's atomic programme could lead to a "nuclear holocaust."

[Rasputin]

No proof Iran running 3,000 centrifuges: diplomats

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement that Iran has 3,000 centrifuges running is not backed up by evidence, diplomats familiar with U.N. inspections said.

Ahmadinejad said on Sunday that Iran had 3,000 working centrifuges. With 3,000 centrifuges running smoothly in unison at supersonic speed for long periods, Iran could refine enough uranium for an atom bomb in about a year, nuclear experts say.

"There's no evidence," a diplomat said, when asked whether Iran had mastered the technology to get 3,000 centrifuges running effectively together.

Ahmadinejad's statement also appeared at odds with findings by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors monitoring Iran's underground Natanz plant.

The IAEA's latest quarterly report on Iran, issued last Thursday, said almost 2,000 centrifuges were enriching uranium in tandem as of August 19, with about 650 in various stages of installation and testing.

Inspectors revisited the plant on Monday and found about 325 more centrifuges being hooked up, closing in on the 3,000 threshold, diplomats said on Tuesday.

But the initial 2,000 were operating well below capacity, the report said, suggesting Iran has some way to go before establishing an industrial rate of enrichment.

"Ahmadinejad may just be reflecting the number of centrifuges installed," another diplomat close to the IAEA, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

"The 3,000 figure is symbolically important for Iran. Ahmadinejad is seizing on it to show his domestic public that the program has not bogged down ... or buckled to U.N. pressure to stop," a European diplomat said.

[Rasputin]

Iran says has deal on nuclear plant but Russia denies

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Thursday it had agreed a timetable with Russia for the start-up of the Islamic state's first nuclear power plant, local media reported, but an official in Moscow said talks with Tehran were still under way.

Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was quoted by the state broadcaster and other media as saying a deal was reached with Moscow for the inauguration of the Russian-built Bushehr plant, without giving details on when it might happen.

The timing of the power station's launch is significant as it is viewed by the United States as an important element in a nuclear drive which the West suspects is a front for developing atomic weapons. Iran says the program is entirely peaceful.

In Moscow, the contractor building the plant in southwestern Iran said talks were not yet finished.

"The negotiations are still under way and we do not yet have results from that so I am not confirming this information," said Irina Yesipova, a spokeswoman for Atomstroiexport.

Russia has repeatedly delayed the plant which under a previous schedule was due to be started up in September 2007, citing missed payments. A Russian sub-contractor has since said there is no chance of it happening before autumn 2008.

Moscow has traditionally been seen as Tehran's closest big-power ally but the delays to Bushehr have chilled relations.

Iran's state broadcaster IRIB, which had quoted Larijani as saying "we have reached good agreements with Russia" and specified a timetable for the plant's inauguration, later issued a report quoting him as saying only progress was being made.

Moscow says there is no evidence that Tehran has the capability to make nuclear weapons, but ties have been strained by what it says are millions of dollars in missed payments.

Iranian officials say they have made the proper payments and that Moscow is delaying due to pressure from the West.

Russian nuclear officials say that nuclear fuel would have to be sent to Bushehr, a project initiated by Iran in the 1970s, at least six months before the reactors start.

Analysts have speculated that Moscow could be adapting its policy towards Tehran or that the Kremlin is using Bushehr as a bargaining chip in a wider diplomatic game.

[Rasputin]

VIENNA (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog body on Friday rebuffed Western critics of a cooperation deal it has struck with Iran as "back-seat drivers" and urged them to give it time to work to help avoid war.

Under the August 21 deal, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran agreed on a rough timetable for addressing lingering questions about Iran's nuclear activities.

IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei said his agency would scrutinize Iran's pledge to cooperate by the end of the year and demand documents and other proof of good faith. If Iran reneged, it would jeopardize any grounds for future trust, he said.

He said critics had misread the pact in suggesting it ruled out future IAEA inquiries if new suspicions about Iranian activity arose, and lifted pressure on Iran to grant wider inspections or heed U.N. resolutions demanding it stop uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to make atom bombs.

"There have been back-seat drivers putting in their five cents saying this is not a good working arrangement," he told reporters invited into his Vienna office for a briefing.

"Iran can never get a pass (on their nuclear behavior) until we decide to give them a pass. They may say (in public statements) that their file is now closed, but that is up to us.

"My advice is to bear with us until we go through this process ... We have a timeline which will enable us by November- December to check clearly whether Iran is ready to work with us in good faith, or whether, as some like to say, Iran is just buying time ... which would absolutely backfire (for them)."

The Islamic Republic says it wants to enrich uranium only to generate electricity, not make atom bombs as the West suspects. U.N. inspectors remain unable to certify Iran has no secret military nuclear facility, but have found no proof of one.

"WAR DRUMS"

"We don't see based on evidence we have that (Iran poses) a clear and present danger requiring you to go beyond diplomacy," he said, alluding to military action mooted by U.S. hardliners.

"I see war drums (being beaten) by those basically saying the short solution is to bomb Iran, which makes me shudder because the rhetoric reminds me of pre-Iraq war," he said.

ElBaradei took aim at rising criticism of IAEA-Iran dealings in U.S. media, which IAEA officials feel is being steered by Bush administration hawks fed up with Iran gradually expanding uranium enrichment despite diplomatic efforts to stop it.

"Some people have been trying to shoot down the plan before they even read it. If you look at some of the American newspapers today there is a coordinated, orchestrated campaign to undermine the process, undermine the agency, undermine me."

Iran says the deal is off if Western powers try to pass harsher sanctions through the U.N. Security Council over Tehran's persisting refusal to suspend enrichment work.

ElBaradei appealed for Western patience to avoid a spiral into bloodshed. "There is a need to be firm, but also a need to encourage Iran to cooperate," he said.

The U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, who earlier dismissed the plan, said on Friday it had potential merit but Iran would have to allow wider-ranging inspections beyond declared nuclear sites to gain international confidence -- a point ElBaradei echoed.

ElBaradei said he expected the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors to approve the plan at a meeting starting on Monday.

[abadani69]

چهارماه بعد از آغاز به کار دولت تازه فرانسه و رياست جمهوری نیکلا سارکوزی، و دو هفته بعد از سفر وی به آمريکا و دیدار دوستانه اش با جورج بوش روز گذشته وزير خارجه چپ گرای آن کشور با تندترین تعبیرها درباره برنامه هسته ای ايران سخن گفت تا فرانسه هم در تهدید ایران به جنگ، در کنار آمريکا و بريتانيا قرار گیرد.

گفته های برنار کوشنه، وزیر خارجه فرانسه در حالی که تیتر اول بیش تر رسانه های جهانی شد که از ابتدای کار دولت سارکوزی پیش بينی می شد اين کشور در جهت سیاست آمریکائی ها گام هائی برمی دارد. کوشنه گفت که جهان باید برای احتمال درگرفتن جنگ بر سر برنامه هسته ای ایران آماده باشد.

مسوول دیپلوماسی فرانسه افزود: "ما باید برای بدترین ها آماده باشیم که بدترین حالت، جنگ است."
وزیر خارجه فرانسه که با شبکه رادیو تلویزیونی فرانسه سخن می گفت تاکيد کرد مذاکرات با ایران بر سر مناقشه هسته ای باید ادامه یابد اما مدعی شد که دستیابی ایران به سلاح هسته ای، می تواند خطری جدی برای جهان باشد.

مهم ترین بخش از گفته های وزیر خارجه سارکوزی آن بود که گفت اگر چه حمله به ایران در حال حاضر باعملی شدن فاصله زیادی دارد اما در عین خال تاکيد داشت که "برای ما طبیعی است که برای هر امکانی آماده شویم."

برای آن که گفته های مهم ترين وزیر کابینه سارکوزی بدون برنامه اجرائی نماند، کوشنه افزود که از شرکت های بزرگ این کشور خواسته شده تا با ایران وارد معاملات تجاری نشوند و از جمله از توتال بزرگ ترین شرکت نفتی فرانسه نام برد که در سال های گذشته معاملات پرگفتگوئی با ايران برای استخراج نفت و گاز انجام داد که هنوز ایرانی ها امیدوارند که آن را از سر بگیرند.
وی افزود که فرانسه خواهان آن است تا اتحادیه اروپا تحریم هایی را علیه ایران برای وادار کردن این کشور برای اجرای قطعنامه های شورای امنیت وضع کند که این تحریم ها غیر از تحریم هایی خواهند بود که توسط این شورا وضع شده اند.

اهمیت گفته های وزیر خارجه جدید فرانسه به اين است که پیش از انتخابات اخیر آن کشور امیدواری هائی درون دولت ایران ايجاد شده بود که با انتخاب سارکوزی روابط دو کشور بهتر شود. پیش از آن رييس جمهور احمدی نژاد در حالی که سفیر نزديک به دولت اصلاحات [صادق خرازی] را از پاریس فراخوانده بود یک دیپلومات نزديک به خود را به پاریس فرستاد اما به این هم اکتفا کرد و نزديک ترین مشاورانش [ ثمره هاشمی] را به آن کشور گسیل داشت و بلافاصله اعلام شد که ایران امیدوارست با کمک فرانسه از بحران هسته ای نجات یابد. علت دیگر امیدواری تهران به انتخاب سارکوزی حمایتی بود که بزرگ ترین سازمان مسلح مخالف جمهوری اسلامی [مجاهدین خلق ] از سگولن رویال رقيب چپ گرای سازکوزی به عمل آورد.

با انتخاب سارکوزی به رياست جمهوری فرانسه در حالی که مقامات ایرانی شادمانی خود را اعلام می داشتند بلافاصله دست به کار ارسال پیام هائی به پاریس شدند که اساس آن بر دعوت از فرانسه برای پیوستن به روسیه و چین و صف آرائی در مقابل آمریکا و بريتانيا بود. به ظاهر پاسخ هائی هم به اين علامت ها رسید که دکتر علی اکبر ولايتی وزير خارجه پیشین و مشاور بين المللی رهبر جمهوری اسلامی در مصاحبه ای به طور مشخص به تحسین از نقش فرانسه در روابط بین المللی پرداخت و تاکید کرد که ايران آماده همکاری با آن کشورست.

اما نخست آن که به نظر می رسد حمايت از برنامه اتمی ایران پرهزينه تر از آن بود که فرانسه با داشتن مشکلات بزرگ اقتصادی بدان دست بزند و ديگر آن که نزديکی به آمريکا به نظر می رسد از اولويتی جدی در سیاست خارجی دولت جدید برخوردار بود.
با همه اين احوال هنوز خبر دقیقی از انصراف توتال فرانسه از معاملات نفت و گاز خود با ایران منتشر نشده و آن شرکت در حال مذاکراتی با ایران بر سر پروژه ال ان جی است. قرارداد اولیه در سال 2004 امضا شد و قرار است فعالیت توتال در این پروژه از سال 2009 آغاز شود اما مذاکرات بر سر قیمت هنوز ادامه دارد.

همزمان با تندتر شدن لحن فرانسه در برابر ایران، آلمان، دیگر عضو کشورهای پنج بعلاوه یک، کمی از آمريکا و بريتانیا فاصله گرفته و برای خوش کردن دل موتلفان سوسیالیست خود اعلام کرده در صورتی که ایران کاملا با آژانس بین المللی انرژی اتمی همکاری کند و در مورد برنامه هسته ای خود شفاف سازی کند، نیازی به وضع تحریم های جدید علیه ایران نخواهد بود.

[abadani69]

دفتر دکترحسن روحانی، رييس مركز تحقيقات استراتژيك مجمع تشخيص مصلحت نظام سفر به بروکسل و سخنرانی وی درپارلمان اروپا را تایید کرد. این خبراولین بارتوسط خاویرسولانا ،دبیرسیاست خارجه وامنیت اتحادیه اروپا در گفت وگو با روزنامه عربستانی عکاظ منتشر اعلام شد. سولانا گفته بود این دیدار درراستای تلاش برای دستیابی به راه حلی برای حل وفصل مساله پرونده هسته ای ایران صورت می گیرد.

به نوشته سایت آفتاب دراین سفر، حسن روحانی علاوه بر سخنرانی درپارلمان اروپا دیدارهایی با مقامات عالی رتبه آلمانی ازجمله وزیر امورخارجه این کشور خواهد داشت. پرونده هسته ای ایران، ازجمله مهم ترین موارداین گفت وگو هاست. روحانی در شرایطی به اروپا می رود که علی لاریجانی هدایت پرونده هسته ای ایران را به عهده دارد ومشخص نیست تقسیم کار جدیدی درزمینه گفت وگوهای هسته ای درمیان مسئولان نظام صورت گرفته است یانه .

هنوز روزنامه ها و سایت های محافظه کار نزدیک به دولت در مورد سفر روحانی به اروپا واکنشی نشان نداده اند. اما با توجه به توافق ایران وآژانس طی هفته های گذشته و همچنین ورود حسن روحانی به بخشی از لابی های مربوط به مذاکرات هسته ای به نظر می رسد، مسئولان بلند پایه جمهوری اسلامی تصمیم گرفته اند از همه امکانات نظام برای جلوگیری از تصویب قطعنامه سوم تحریم علیه ایران استفاده کنند. آمریکا ودیگر کشورهای عضو دائم شورای امنیت سازمان ملل روز 21 سپتامبر(هفته آینده)، درخصوص اعمال تحریم های سختگیرانه تر بر ایران درواشینگتن به گفت وگو خواهند پرداخت.

دبیر پیشین شورای عالی امنیت ملی همچنین به دعوت بنیاد کوربرآلمان، علاوه بر وزیرامورخارجه آلمان، با مشاورصدراعظم این کشور، رییس سیاست خارجی آلمان ومسئول سیاست خارجی اتحادیه اروپا ورییس پارلمان اروپا نیزدیدارهایی خواهد داشت. دیدارهایی که برای رییس مرکز تحقیقات استراتژیک مجمع تشخیص مصلحت نظام درنظرگرفته شده ، طی دوسال گذشته بی سابقه بوده ونشانگرروند جدیدی درمسیرپرونده هسته ای است.

موضوعاتی که برای مذاکرات دبیرسابق شورای امنیت ملی ومسئول سابق مذاکرات هسته ای ایران درنظر گرفته شده شامل مواردی چون روابط دو جانبه، مسائل ایران و اروپا، مسائل منطقه*ای و بین المللی وچالش های منطقه ای است.
روحانی پس از روی کار آمدن دولت احمدی نژاد، شاهد انتقادات بسیاری ازسوی بلندپایه ترین مقامات دولت نهم وازجمله رئیس این دولت بوده است. این انتقادات که در مورد وی صورت کلامی داشته، در مورد حسن موسویان، دیگر عضو گروه مذاکره کننده هسته ای به ریاست روحانی، به زندان و طرح اتهام جاسوسی گسترش یافته است.

[abadani69]

یک هفته بعد از اظهارات خوشبینانه رييس سازمان انرژی اتمی ایران مبنی بر آماده شدن سوخت نیروگاه هسته ای برای ارسال به ایران، و دو روز بعد از تکذیب این خبر توسط روس ها، ایران و روسیه در وین توافق جدیدی را اعلام داشتند که معنای آن تاخیر در آماده سازی بوشهر برای هشتمین بار است.

به نوشته خبرگزاری ها رؤساي سازمان هاي انرژي اتمي ايران و روسيه به توافق جديدي درباره راه اندازي نيروگاه بوشهر دست يافتند. اين در حالي است که هفته گذشته آقازاده با کرینکو همتای روسی خود در مسکو دیدار کرده و اعلام داشته بود که سوخت نیروگاه بوشهر در انبار آماده است.

آن چه عجیب به نظر می رسد اطلاعاتی است که از توافق های تازه درز کرده؛ چنان که محمد سعیدی معاون بین المللی سازمان انرژی اتمی ایران گفته رؤساي سازمان هاي انرژي اتمي ايران و روسيه در حاشيه پنجاه ويكمين كنفرانس عمومي سالانه آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي توافق كردند تا تيم هاي كارشناسي دو كشور تا يك ماه آينده جمع بندي خود را درباره راه اندازي نيروگاه بوشهر ارائه دهند.

وي با اشاره به ديدار آقازاده و كرينكو اظهار داشته: در روزهاي آتي تيم هاي كارشناسي دو كشور براي بررسي روند راه اندازي و بهره برداري نيروگاه بوشهر كار خود را ادامه مي دهند و ظرف يك ماه آينده نتايج و جمع بندي هاي به دست آمده را به رؤساي سازمان هاي انرژي اتمي دو كشور براي تصميم گيري ارائه مي دهند.

روسيه بر اساس آخرین وعده خود باید اسفند ماه سال گذشته سوخت نيروگاه بوشهر را به ايران ارسال می کرد اما نه تنها اين كار صورت نگرفت بلكه پس از آن روسيه در بهانه جويي هاي جديد و تكراري اعلام كرد كه نيروگاه بوشهر در موعد مقرر آذرماه سال جاري راه اندازي نمي شود و احتمالاً اين نيروگاه در سال 2008 راه اندازي خواهد شد.

غلامرضا آقازاده رئيس سازمان انرژي اتمي ايران در حاشيه مجمع عمومي آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي با محمد البرادعي نيز ديدار كرده است. وي همچنين در نشستي با اعضاي غيرمتعهد آژانس با آنها به گفت وگو پرداخته است.

[abadani69]

واشنگتن- يک فرمانده نظامي ايالات متحده در منطقه خاورميانه که اخيراً بازنشسته شده است روز دوشنبه گفت بايد به هر وسيله ممکن مانع از دستيابي ايران به سلاح هاي هسته اي شد اما اگر موفقيتي در اين زمينه بدست نيامد، دنيا مي تواند با حکومت هسته اي در تهران کنار بيايد.

ژنرال بازنشسته ارتش، جان ابي زيد، که دو سال فرماندهي ارتش آمريکا در خاورميانه بوده است گفت که مطمئن شده است حتي اگر ايران به سلاح هسته اي دست پيدا کند، ايالات متحده قادر است مانع استفاده از آن شود.
او گفت: "ايران يک ملت انتحاري نيست. منظورم اين است که شايد در ايران تعدادي از افراد به نظر غير منطقي بيايند اما من شک دارم ايراني ها بخواهند با سلاح هسته اي به ما حمله کنند."

او مي گويد ايراني ها مي دانند ايالات متحده توان نظامي بسيار برتري دارد.
او با فرض اين که ايران ريسک يک حمله فاجعه آميز را با بکار بردن سلاح هسته اي در برابر ايالات متحده به جان نخواهد خريد گفت: "اگر موضوع هسته اي بشود، من اعتقاد دارم ما قدرت بازداشتن ايران را داريم."

ابي زيد در جريان سخنراني اش در مرکز مطالعات استراتژيک و بين المللي گفت: "راه هايي براي زندگي در کنار ايران هسته اي وجود دارد. بياييد با حقيقت روبرو شويم. ما با اتحاد جماهير شوروي هسته اي زندگي کرديم. با چين هسته اي کنار آمديم و حالا هم در کنار ساير کشورهاي هسته اي زندگي مي کنيم."

او تاکيد کرد که نظرات شخصي خودش را بيان مي کند و هيج يک از اظهارات او بر پايه تجربيات سابقش از طرح هاي مربوط به اقدامات احتمالي نظامي ايالات متحده در رويارويي با ايران نيست.

ابي زيد بر خطرات دستيابي کشورهاي بيشتر بر تکنولوژي ساخت سلاح هسته اي تاکيد کرد. او گفت در حالي که ايران قوياً در جهت دستيابي به تکنولوژي ساخت بمب هسته اي در حرکت است اما اين موضوع کاملاً محرز و قريب الوقوع نيست.

نظر ابي زيد اين است که انجام يک حمله نظامي پيشگيرانه در برابر جاه طلبي هاي ايران شايد عاقلانه ترين گزينه پيش رو نباشد.

او گفت: "جنگ در آن منطقه از دنيا براي همه ويرانگر است و ما بايد تا جاييکه واقعاً امکان دارد از آن پرهيز کنيم. از طرف ديگر ما نمي توانيم به ايراني ها اجازه دهيم به کارهاي خودادامه بدهند و منافع حياتي ما را در معرض خطر قرار دهند."

او معتقد است خيلي ها در ايران مايل به همکاري با غرب هستند که اين احتمالاً شامل افرادي در دولت تهران هم مي شود. او زمانيکه بوش براي اولين بار ايران را به همراه کره شمالي و صدام حسين در محور شرارت جاي داد، خواستار خويشتنداري در رفتار با ايران بود.

او گفت اين اميدواري وجود دارد که ايران موضع فعلي خود در تضاد با غرب به مرور تغيير دهد.
نظرات ابي زيد در برابر ساير حاکمان کاخ سفيد که مکرراً از تهديدات برنامه هاي هسته اي ايران سخن مي گويند، ظاهراً بيانگر موضعي سازشکارانه و اميدوارانه تري است. دستگاه ديپلماسي بوش در ميان همه تدارکاتي که براي يک حمله نظامي مي بيند، مدعي است در پي يافتن راه هاي ديپلماتيک است تا مانع از پشتيباني ايران از تروريسم و بلند پروازي هاي هسته اي شود.

ابي زبد اعتقاد قوي خود را در مورد اينکه سرانجام ايالات متحده و جامعه جهاني موفق به حل معضل ايران مي شوند ابراز کرد.

او گفت: "من معتقدم ايالات متحده با قدرت عظيم نظامي اش مي تواند اين پيام را به ايراني ها بدهد که حتي با ساختن يک يا دو بمب هسته اي، هرگز توان رقابت با قدرت واقعي نظامي ما را ندارند."

او دولت ايران را به عنوان حکومتي بي ملاحظه توصيف کرد که در سوداي برتري در خاورميانه است.
او در حالي که اظهاراتش را بر يافتن راه هايي براي کنار آمدن با ايران هسته اي متمرکز مي کرد گفت: "ما بايد جامعه جهاني را تا جايي که مي شود تحت فشار قرار دهيم. بايد ايراني ها را مجبور کنيم از توسعه سلاح هاي هسته اي دست بردارند و نبايد هيج عمل لازمي را دور از ذهن نگه داريم."

ابي زبد سپس اظهاراتي هم در پاسخ به شرکت کنندگان در جلسه ايراد کرد. سخنراني اوهم درباره چالش هاي استراتژيک در منطقه خاور ميانه و آسياي مرکزي بود که وي مدت دو سال از جولاي 2003 تا فوريه 2007 فرمانده نيروهاي ايالات متحده را در اين مناطق بر عهده داشت و سپس جاي خود را به آدميرال ويليام فالون داد.
ايالات متحده روابطش را با ايران پس از ماجراي گروگانگيري در سفارتخانه آمريکا در تهران در سال 1979 قطع کرد. هرچند هر دو کشور تلاش هاي عمومي و مخفي را براي بهبود روابط انجام مي دهند اما دستگاه ديپلماسي بوش ايران را به عنوان بخشي از محور شرارت نام نهاده است. رهبران ايران هم از سوي ديگر، همچنان آمريکا را شيطان بزرگ خطاب مي کنند.

[Rasputin]

No evidence Iran is making nuclear weapons: ElBaradei

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Chief UN atomic watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now," the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.

"Even if Iran were to be working on a nuclear weapon ... they are at least a few years from having such a weapon," he said, citing assessments by US officials themselves.

"At this stage we need to continue to work through creative diplomacy ... as I don't see any other solution than diplomacy and inspections," ElBaradei said.

The White House Friday rejected any parallels between its Iran rhetoric and the run-up to the Iraq invasion, after fresh sanctions on Tehran and escalating US warnings fueled comparisons to the months before the 2003 invasion.

"We are absolutely committed to a diplomatic process," spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters.

"We would never take options off the table, but the diplomatic process is what we want to move forward with," he said, calling it "unwise" to rule out the use of force.

His comments came as US President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been sharply ramping up their rhetoric about Iran, leading some critics to draw parallels with the late 2002 verbal escalation against Iraq.

In recent months, Bush has predicted "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" if Tehran gets atomic weapons, while Cheney has warned of "serious consequences" for Iran if it defies global demands to freeze uranium enrichment -- echoing the UN resolution that Washington says authorized war in Iraq.

ElBaradei said if the United States had more information on Iran's nuclear drive than the IAEA, "I would be very happy to receive it and go forward."

He said "we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No," he said.

Merely "exchanging rhetoric" would not resolve the Iranian nuclear case, ElBaradei said, pointing to ongoing negotiations with North Korea as an example of dealing with the Islamic republic.

Under six-nation talks, North Korea has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs in return for a broad package of economic and diplomatic incentives.

ElBaradei said it is time "to stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue," warning that military force could spark a global "conflagration."

"It could even accelerate a drive by Iran, even if they are not working on a nuclear weapon today, to go for a nuclear weapon," the IAEA chief added.

"So we can talk about use of force if and when we exhausted diplomacy ... but we are far, far away from that stage."

The six major powers involved in talks about Iran's nuclear program will meet in Europe in early November to discuss strengthened UN sanctions against Tehran, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack announced Friday.

Political directors from the foreign ministries of France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany and the United States will meet "toward the end of next week," McCormack told reporters.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

In 2001, 83% of the Pakistanis supported the Taliban [1]. Six years later, in a 2007 World Public Opinion poll [2], 84% of the Pakistanis thought attacks on civilians for the purpose of reaching a political goal was justified. Given that there are radicals who support terrorism with the possibility of gaining access to nuclear bombs in a country that is currently under emergency rule, common sense demands that world leaders turn their attention to Pakistan. Yet, inexplicably, the United States continues to hand out aid to its ‘ally’ Pakistan while quietly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island of Diego Garcia in preparation for a military assault against Iran [3]. What motivates the United States to take such paradoxical action?

America and Israel have accused Iran of intending to diversify its program – they allege that Iran is using its civilian program as a cover to build nuclear bombs. This supposition begs the question why Iran would place itself in the spotlight instead of renouncing the energy program for history has shown that having an operating nuclear power reactor is no longer a prerequisite or even a necessary condition of obtaining fissile material which can be used for the development of nuclear materials. South Africa was able to develop five nuclear bombs without having a nuclear energy program. North Korea was able to acquire enriched uranium with mundane centrifuges and other technologies to constitute the critical mass needed for a low-yield “dirty” bomb.

Iran has also been accused of pursuing its nuclear program in ‘secret’, further ‘proof’ of its alleged intentions to divert its nuclear program into a bomb making one. Contrary to these allegations, the new Iranian government decided to continue its nuclear energy projects to meet the surging needs of the growing population and to compensate for the immense damage caused to the infrastructure of the country during the war with Iraq. In 1982 Iranian officials announced that they planned to build a reactor powered by their own uranium at the Isfahan nuclear technology centre. In 1983, the IAEA reported that they were ready to “contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious program in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology”. Under pressure from the United States, their cooperation was terminated [4].

Tehran openly negotiated with several nations (unsuccessfully under pressure from Washington) until finally it struck a deal with Moscow. This met with former President Clinton’s ‘duel-containment’ policy. Executive Order 12957 given by Clinton specifically banned any "contract for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran."

In addition, President Yeltsin had assured Washington that Iran would not be able to make weapons-grade plutonium and that he had canceled the "military components" of two nuclear reactors bound for Iran. Under U.S. pressure, both Ukraine and China had made some adjustments. Ukraine, announced that it would not supply turbines for a Russian reactor project at Bushehr. China suspended the sale of a plant for the conversion of uranium hexafluoride, which is required for making fuel rods [5]. In 1997, Russian officials expelled Iranians studying nuclear physics and missile science from Russian schools in late 1997 [6]. They have also halted all vocational training of Iranian students in fields that may have applications for nuclear weapons and missiles.

America had long said –and it continues to say today, that its single biggest concern is for Iran to have the knowledge which could lead to making the bomb. So why did it not stop its confrontational path?

Ideology - Regrettably, the history of the Middle East shows that secular resistance to foreign exploitation has been crushed by imperial powers. Mossadeq, a fierce nationalist, who was democratically elected to be prime minister of Iran, was removed by a CIA-backed coup when he nationalized Iran’s oil. Likewise, Egypt’s leader, Nasser, a secular and fiercely nationalist leader, was called ‘Hitler on the Nile’ for wishing to control the Suez canal. Six months before the French and the British invaded Egypt in 1956, Britain had drawn up secret plans to cut off the flow of the River Nile to try to force Nasser to give up the Suez Canal [7].

Islam, it would seem, has proven itself capable of challenging the world’s superpower. And it was not with its effects on the region. Saudi Arabia felt unsettled with events in Iran and the lack of support the Shah seemed to have received from the U.S. “The Saudis undoubtedly felt considerable annoyance at the United States for doing too little to prevent the Shah’s fall and too much to promote Sadat’s peace initiative”. For this reason, at the onset of the Iranian revolution, the Saudis dropped their production by 1 million barrels per day, playing havoc on oil markets at a most crucial time (Deese and Nye 6 [8]. Although Saudi Arabia later picked up Iran’s slack, Washington was not prepared to have Saudi Arabia follow Iran’s suite. Nor was Washington accustomed to having an Arab nation ‘threaten’ its oil supply.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the pretext Washington needed to make its move. The ‘Carter Doctrine’ was nothing short of putting American soldiers in harms way to protect the free flow of oil. In subsequent years this doctrine took on other forms such as the Gulf War, and War on Terror and democratization. But putting the life of American soldiers in harms way for the sake of oil required a noble cause – the public have always been led to believe that wars have been necessary to defeat ‘evil’.

Money: The root of all Evil - In 1960s, an agreement was struck with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. In essence, the dollar was now backed with oil instead of gold. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength. Deviation from this by any OPEC member would impact the dollar. Iran announced its intentions to convert to Euros in 1999.

Other economic factors include a renewable 15-year Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the U.S. and Israel signed in September 1975, in which the United States Government has undertaken to promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport [9].

The 1979 overthrow of the Shah created added expense and inconvenience for Israel and America. The Shah supplied all Israel's oil needs via a pipeline from Eilat. After the revolution, the clergy put a stop to this and Israel was forced to buy more expensive oil – footed by the U.S. In the 1980’s, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa in northern Israel. Syria, acceded to a request from Iran to block the flow of Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean (The flow of oil from Mosul was redirected from Haifa to Syria after the British Mandate for Palestine expired in 194. [10] The plan was postponed.

The ‘war on terror’ presented yet another opportunity, but Washington's game plan seems to have been stymied by Iraq's Shiite majority which is a close ally of Iran’s. This explains why Iran is cast as a threat and the endless efforts of the mainstream media delivering news to every living room of deaths caused by ‘Iranian-backed Shiite militias’. This is the evil that must be overcome in order for democracy to prevail, and this is why American soldiers are dying.

Where there is oil, there is Plan ‘B’ - Upon taking office, George W. Bush. commissioned the Bakers Institute (Rice University) and the Council on Foreign Relations to study the energy trends and requirements of the 21st century. The comprehensive 99-page report favored the Iranian route for the Caspian oil exports which would serve several purposes. In itself, it would translate into a policy shift towards Tehran, and throw Iran as a counter weight to Iraq. The transport of oil through Iran versus the prohibitively expensive longer and costly Baku-Ceyhan pipeline would be of great benefit to the West, and the world, and help build up the drastically low global spare capacity, according to the report. Another strong contention of the report was that the U.S. ought to move the Caspian region into a zone of cooperation with Russia instead of a zone of competition and confrontation, enabling future cooperation such as jointly countering Islamic militants in the region (Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, 2001, pp. 38-40,45,) [ii]. Of note, the Kazakh officials had been in favor of the Iran route, as well as the U.S. oil companies such as Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Conoco [iii].

In September 2001,A.Nesdat Pamir of the Jerusalem based think-tank IASPS, challenged the commission report with a strategy paper called “Turkey: The Key to Caspian Oil and Gas”. He argued that “ given that the price of oil have allowed states to invest heavily in Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the primary external of this development, both economically and diplomatically, has been Russia” [iv]. Russia, therefore, is arming the Middle East with WMD and the 80% oil potential should be rescued. According to him, the lifeline of America would be for it to use the prohibitively expensive Ceyhan –Baku Pipeline [through Turkey and Israel] in order to avoid the anti-American Middle East .

[Rasputin]

America and Israel insist on reject the report card from the IAEA the UN watchdog chief has been told that he must be ‘sacked’ for not understanding Iran’s ‘intentions’. One must have a clear understanding that Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a threat, however, due to isolation, Iran has become a self-reliant nation and has escaped self-colonization. Iran is politically aware, and technologically advanced. She is keen to pursue her civilian nuclear technology, not as a violation or as a threat to world order, but as her inalienable right under international law and in response to the current and future needs of the Iranian people.

No doubt the perceived threat from Iran will diminish should Tehran yield to Washington, generously delivers its oil to Israel to better enable it to continue its expansionist policies, and participate in human rights abuses in the name of freedom and democracy vs. state sovereignty. But even if the regime in Tehran succumbs, will the people who have accomplished so much under such extraordinary circumstances, surrender?

[1] YES PAKISTAN: Gallup Poll on Current Pakistan Crisis

[2] WORLD PUBLIC OPINION: Muslims Believe US Seeks to Undermine Islam

[3] THE HERALD: Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans

[4] Mark Hibbs, “US in 1983 stopped IAEA from helping Iran make UF6", Nuclear Fuel, 4 August 2003

[5] Monshipouri, Mahmood, “Iran’s Search For the New Pragmatism”. Middle East Policy. 6.2 (199 p.95-113

[6] Iran Times, August 22, 1997

[7] AP: Britain had secret plan to cut flow of Nile River — newly opened official file

[8] Deese, David A. and Joseph S. Nye, Ibid

[9] JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY: Memorandum of Agreement between the Governments of the United States of America and Israel - Oil

[10] HAARETZ: Infrastructure Minister Paritzky dreams of Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa

[11] UPI: BTC oil pipeline inaugurated in Turkey

[Rasputin]

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report with regards to Iran’s Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities was released on Monday. It said that Iranians had halted their weapons program in 2003 and have not pursued it since then. That is about the same time that we now know Iran offered the great bargain to the Bush administration via Swiss Embassy in Tehran. According to Flynt Leverett, the senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council (2002-3) and Richard Armitage. the Deputy Secretary of State (2001-2005) that proposal was ignored and rejected under pressure from the vice president’s office.

The NIE report on Iran was held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program. A NIE coordinates the judgments of the US's 16 intelligence agencies on a specific country or issue. The aim of delay was to make the document more supportive of Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts provided by participants in the NIE process to two former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers that Gareth Porter talked to for his report published in Asia Times on Nov. 10th of this year (“Spooks refuse to toe Cheney's line on Iran.”)

The report declassified partially today raises a serious question about honesty of the president and its administration on this issue. For example, President Bush said on October 17: "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have(…ing) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." A week or two before Tony Blair in a New York appearance talked about the threats of fascism and similarity of the situation with 1930s of Germany. President Sarkuzi also has been talking about the information they have received that proves the Iranian intentions of making bomb. These were all claimed after IAEA chairman ElBaradei came out strongly about his organization semi-positive reports on Iranian Nuclear program.

Around the February of 2007 an Iranian Brigadier General defected to the west and was interviewed in Germany. General Asghari is believed to have been working with western intelligence agencies since 2003 after he retired from his position as deputy secretary of defense in Iranian government. At the same time US removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, a major event that made Iranian reliance on nuclear weaponry irrelevant. Presumably Iranians knew that their attempt to make the bomb was just a deterrent strategy against the potential Iraqi aggressions, and would have not be sufficient against Israel and any other player due to their much larger arsenal. Any such attempt would indeed “wipe out Iran from the face of the time.”

As Porter suggests the conclusions of the NIE have been known for quite a long time but were not permitted to be released. The question then becomes what did the President know and when, and why he continued misleading the world. It is obvious that if the NIE was held up for a year it was readily available to the President. But if we had been keeping this information under the rug and from our Allies, what damage will this have done to the remaining shreds of trust in the United States as a strategic ally? What will the fall-out be for decades of intelligence cooperation?

Stephen Hadley the National Security Advisor to President Bush, yesterday came out spinning the report one more time by claiming that they only became aware of the facts last Tuesday and President was informed on Wednesday. The reality is that NIE report itself indicates that it is based on information received before and by the October 31st, 2007 cut off date. On the other hand the Bush administration likes to use the report as a proof that their failed policy toward Iran has worked and pressure and isolation needs to continue. Whereas the report indicates the halt of the weapon program happened in 2003, when there was no international sanction in place.

Knowing what we know today, thanks to the solid resistance of the Intelligence community, we have the right to question the integrity of the White House and especially the office of the Vice President, when it has shown once again the lack of sincerity.