Re: Iran Film Ban Attempts to Curtail Freedoms
<font size="5"><center>Iran Asks Europeans To Reopen Discussions</font size>
<font size="4">Nuclear Talks Ended Three Months Ago</font size></center>
By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 7, 2005; Page A14
ISTANBUL, Nov. 6 -- Iran on Sunday formally asked three European powers to resume negotiations over its nuclear program, three months after the talks collapsed when Iran resumed work at a uranium enrichment plant.
The top Iranian negotiator, Ali Larijani, forwarded letters to the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain calling for "constructive and logical negotiations," the official IRNA news agency reported.
Iran has insisted that it plans to enrich uranium to fuel a peaceful nuclear energy program. The European powers and the Bush administration maintain that Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons.
Several European countries and the United States sought to punish Iran when it announced in August that it was resuming some work to enrich uranium. They persuaded a majority of the countries on the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, but left open the question of when that would happen.
Since then, Iran has appeared to have lost some negotiating room. Early last month, the IAEA and its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, bolstering the status of the monitoring agency, which has repeatedly expressed skepticism about Iran's candor. And on Oct. 26, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drew a torrent of international criticism when he said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan subsequently postponed a visit to Tehran.
A spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry played down the situation Sunday during his regular news conference. "There is no crisis in this country that requires us to set up a crisis headquarters," Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in response to a question. "Iran is currently in a good situation."
Asefi also confirmed that Iran had allowed IAEA inspectors to visit a military installation at Parchin, about 20 miles southeast of Tehran, to investigate allegations that the site was part of Iran's nuclear weapons research program. Inspectors first visited Parchin in January.
"We were not against cooperation with the IAEA inspectors from the very beginning," Asefi said, according to IRNA.
The European governments had no immediate response to the request to resume negotiations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5110600740.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
<font size="5"><center>Iran Asks Europeans To Reopen Discussions</font size>
<font size="4">Nuclear Talks Ended Three Months Ago</font size></center>
By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 7, 2005; Page A14
ISTANBUL, Nov. 6 -- Iran on Sunday formally asked three European powers to resume negotiations over its nuclear program, three months after the talks collapsed when Iran resumed work at a uranium enrichment plant.
The top Iranian negotiator, Ali Larijani, forwarded letters to the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain calling for "constructive and logical negotiations," the official IRNA news agency reported.
Iran has insisted that it plans to enrich uranium to fuel a peaceful nuclear energy program. The European powers and the Bush administration maintain that Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons.
Several European countries and the United States sought to punish Iran when it announced in August that it was resuming some work to enrich uranium. They persuaded a majority of the countries on the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, but left open the question of when that would happen.
Since then, Iran has appeared to have lost some negotiating room. Early last month, the IAEA and its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, bolstering the status of the monitoring agency, which has repeatedly expressed skepticism about Iran's candor. And on Oct. 26, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drew a torrent of international criticism when he said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan subsequently postponed a visit to Tehran.
A spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry played down the situation Sunday during his regular news conference. "There is no crisis in this country that requires us to set up a crisis headquarters," Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in response to a question. "Iran is currently in a good situation."
Asefi also confirmed that Iran had allowed IAEA inspectors to visit a military installation at Parchin, about 20 miles southeast of Tehran, to investigate allegations that the site was part of Iran's nuclear weapons research program. Inspectors first visited Parchin in January.
"We were not against cooperation with the IAEA inspectors from the very beginning," Asefi said, according to IRNA.
The European governments had no immediate response to the request to resume negotiations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5110600740.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
Re: Iran Film Ban Attempts to Curtail Freedoms
<font size="5"><center>EU Refuses Trade Talks With Iran, Citing Atomic Issue (Update1)</font size></center>
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union rejected an Iranian request to resume talks on trade cooperation, saying the Islamic nation must halt uranium enrichment to allay Western concerns about Tehran's nuclear program.
Iran yesterday asked Britain, France and Germany to renew the negotiations on behalf of the 25-nation EU. The letter from Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, comes three months after Tehran resumed uranium enrichment, which can be used for nuclear power or bombs.
``They have started and increased the process of conversion, which is contradictory to the agreements,'' Javier Solana, EU high representative for the common foreign and security policy, said in an interview today in Brussels. ``They have to do something on that before a resumption of serious talks can take place.''
Solana's comments signal a common trans-Atlantic stance before the United Nations nuclear watchdog meets Nov. 24 to decide whether to seek UN Security Council condemnation of Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment. Iran, the Middle East's No. 2 oil producer, says its nuclear program is for energy.
The U.S. accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism. Britain, France and Germany last year persuaded Iran temporarily to suspend uranium-enrichment activities and held out the prospect of deeper industrial and strategic cooperation in return for permanent measures.
Solana, who is involved in the British, French and German dialogue with Iran, said the Iranian letter doesn't ``give anything that's very new.''
`Bad Signal'
``The letter asks for the possibility of resuming some kind of negotiation,'' he said. ``But without clarifying the conditions from where we start, it's very difficult to do it.''
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment sent a ``very bad signal'' and the EU now expects a ``concrete gesture'' over the issue.
``The development of our relations with Iran over the long term will depend on actions undertaken by Tehran to respond to various concerns, above all in the nuclear area,'' he told reporters in Brussels today after a meeting of EU foreign ministers.
In a joint statement today, the EU's 25 governments expressed ``grave concern'' over Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment.
The EU leaders also criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments last month that Israel ``must be wiped off the map,'' saying they ``cause concern about Iran's role in the region and its future intentions.''
This remark had already provoked a wave of rebukes including from EU heads of government and prompted UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to cancel a Tehran trip.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Jonathan Stearns in Brussels at jstearns2@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=a0xnI5duSPhs&refer=europe
and the reason for that maybe ?QueEx said:
<font size="5"><center>EU Refuses Trade Talks With Iran, Citing Atomic Issue (Update1)</font size></center>
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union rejected an Iranian request to resume talks on trade cooperation, saying the Islamic nation must halt uranium enrichment to allay Western concerns about Tehran's nuclear program.
Iran yesterday asked Britain, France and Germany to renew the negotiations on behalf of the 25-nation EU. The letter from Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, comes three months after Tehran resumed uranium enrichment, which can be used for nuclear power or bombs.
``They have started and increased the process of conversion, which is contradictory to the agreements,'' Javier Solana, EU high representative for the common foreign and security policy, said in an interview today in Brussels. ``They have to do something on that before a resumption of serious talks can take place.''
Solana's comments signal a common trans-Atlantic stance before the United Nations nuclear watchdog meets Nov. 24 to decide whether to seek UN Security Council condemnation of Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment. Iran, the Middle East's No. 2 oil producer, says its nuclear program is for energy.
The U.S. accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism. Britain, France and Germany last year persuaded Iran temporarily to suspend uranium-enrichment activities and held out the prospect of deeper industrial and strategic cooperation in return for permanent measures.
Solana, who is involved in the British, French and German dialogue with Iran, said the Iranian letter doesn't ``give anything that's very new.''
`Bad Signal'
``The letter asks for the possibility of resuming some kind of negotiation,'' he said. ``But without clarifying the conditions from where we start, it's very difficult to do it.''
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment sent a ``very bad signal'' and the EU now expects a ``concrete gesture'' over the issue.
``The development of our relations with Iran over the long term will depend on actions undertaken by Tehran to respond to various concerns, above all in the nuclear area,'' he told reporters in Brussels today after a meeting of EU foreign ministers.
In a joint statement today, the EU's 25 governments expressed ``grave concern'' over Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment.
The EU leaders also criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments last month that Israel ``must be wiped off the map,'' saying they ``cause concern about Iran's role in the region and its future intentions.''
This remark had already provoked a wave of rebukes including from EU heads of government and prompted UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to cancel a Tehran trip.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Jonathan Stearns in Brussels at jstearns2@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=a0xnI5duSPhs&refer=europe
Iran Leader's Radicalism Angering Allies
Iran Leader's Radicalism Angering Allies
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - Critics say the 1980s-style radicalism of ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hurting Iran at home and abroad — to the point that even his natural allies in parliament have rejected his three choices to run the all-important oil ministry.
The Islamic hard-liner appears undeterred, but pragmatists in the ruling hierarchy are growing restless and looking for ways to contain him.
"Ahmadinejad's behavior has annoyed many fellow conservatives. That he doesn't like to consult with anybody outside his small circle of old friends is a reality," said Ghodratollah Rahmani, a conservative writer.
"He doesn't consult even with knowledgeable people in his own camp."
Even extremists within the hard-line camp want Ahmadinejad to be more responsive to their advice.
"If he doesn't want to hear no for a fourth time, he has to consult with people outside his circle of friends," said Mohammad Nabi Habibi, leader of the Islamic Coalition Society.
Since taking office in August, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.
The former Tehran mayor's aim is to install a new generation of rulers who will revive the radical fundamentalist goals pursued in the 1980s under the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the 1979 revolution that toppled Iran's pro-Western shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
All pragmatists, including those seeking better ties with the West, have either lost their posts or likely will lose them soon, pushing the government toward an ever more radical stance in the already volatile Middle East and in the international dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which the United States believes is seeking to build weapons.
Ahmadinejad's call last month for Israel to be "wiped off the map" intensified international concerns about his policies. Iran's resumption of uranium conversion angered some nations that have suspicions over whether the Tehran regime is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian moderates say the president has harmed his country by isolating it internationally, and now Ahmadinejad's friends are lining up against him. He suffered a humiliating defeat last week when his choice for oil minister was rejected for a third time, an unprecedented failure for an Iranian president.
While parliament is dominated by Ahmadinejad's conservative allies, the president's isolationist stance and his failure to consult on Cabinet appointments have annoyed lawmakers. They warn they will not approve any future nominee unless Ahmadinejad first consults parliament.
Pragmatists within the ruling establishment worry that Ahmadinejad's radical agenda has sidelined a cadre of experienced men at home and isolated the country abroad.
Earlier this month, the government announced that 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats, including supporters of better ties with the West, would be fired. Also let go were pragmatists who handled Iran's nuclear negotiations with Europe under Ahmadinejad's reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.
In the works, but still not made public, is a deeper shake-up of the establishment in which Ahmadinejad is replacing hundreds of governors and senior officials at various ministries with young, inexperienced Islamic hard-liners who oppose good relations with the West. The changes include putting fundamentalists in key posts at security agencies.
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's president in the 1990s who remains influential with some in both the hard-line and moderate camps, said the purge has made Iran vulnerable.
"Unfortunately, some are on the offensive, damaging what has been done, and purging competent people. This is hurting the country," Rafsanjani said.
But Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state, has endorsed Ahmadinejad's course.
"Ahmadinejad's government represents the people's tendency to revolutionary slogans," he said earlier this month. "For any assessment of the president and his Cabinet, one has to give him time and opportunity."
Mahdi Kalhor, a senior adviser to the president, said Iranians and other nations have to accept that Ahmadinejad prefers to work in isolation.
"Yes, the president consults (only) his trusted friends," Kalhor said. "Ahmadinejad has a revolutionary management policy. He makes decisions within 24 hours that previous governments used to take within five years."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127..._JI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Iran Leader's Radicalism Angering Allies
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - Critics say the 1980s-style radicalism of ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hurting Iran at home and abroad — to the point that even his natural allies in parliament have rejected his three choices to run the all-important oil ministry.
The Islamic hard-liner appears undeterred, but pragmatists in the ruling hierarchy are growing restless and looking for ways to contain him.
"Ahmadinejad's behavior has annoyed many fellow conservatives. That he doesn't like to consult with anybody outside his small circle of old friends is a reality," said Ghodratollah Rahmani, a conservative writer.
"He doesn't consult even with knowledgeable people in his own camp."
Even extremists within the hard-line camp want Ahmadinejad to be more responsive to their advice.
"If he doesn't want to hear no for a fourth time, he has to consult with people outside his circle of friends," said Mohammad Nabi Habibi, leader of the Islamic Coalition Society.
Since taking office in August, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.
The former Tehran mayor's aim is to install a new generation of rulers who will revive the radical fundamentalist goals pursued in the 1980s under the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the 1979 revolution that toppled Iran's pro-Western shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
All pragmatists, including those seeking better ties with the West, have either lost their posts or likely will lose them soon, pushing the government toward an ever more radical stance in the already volatile Middle East and in the international dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which the United States believes is seeking to build weapons.
Ahmadinejad's call last month for Israel to be "wiped off the map" intensified international concerns about his policies. Iran's resumption of uranium conversion angered some nations that have suspicions over whether the Tehran regime is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian moderates say the president has harmed his country by isolating it internationally, and now Ahmadinejad's friends are lining up against him. He suffered a humiliating defeat last week when his choice for oil minister was rejected for a third time, an unprecedented failure for an Iranian president.
While parliament is dominated by Ahmadinejad's conservative allies, the president's isolationist stance and his failure to consult on Cabinet appointments have annoyed lawmakers. They warn they will not approve any future nominee unless Ahmadinejad first consults parliament.
Pragmatists within the ruling establishment worry that Ahmadinejad's radical agenda has sidelined a cadre of experienced men at home and isolated the country abroad.
Earlier this month, the government announced that 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats, including supporters of better ties with the West, would be fired. Also let go were pragmatists who handled Iran's nuclear negotiations with Europe under Ahmadinejad's reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.
In the works, but still not made public, is a deeper shake-up of the establishment in which Ahmadinejad is replacing hundreds of governors and senior officials at various ministries with young, inexperienced Islamic hard-liners who oppose good relations with the West. The changes include putting fundamentalists in key posts at security agencies.
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's president in the 1990s who remains influential with some in both the hard-line and moderate camps, said the purge has made Iran vulnerable.
"Unfortunately, some are on the offensive, damaging what has been done, and purging competent people. This is hurting the country," Rafsanjani said.
But Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state, has endorsed Ahmadinejad's course.
"Ahmadinejad's government represents the people's tendency to revolutionary slogans," he said earlier this month. "For any assessment of the president and his Cabinet, one has to give him time and opportunity."
Mahdi Kalhor, a senior adviser to the president, said Iranians and other nations have to accept that Ahmadinejad prefers to work in isolation.
"Yes, the president consults (only) his trusted friends," Kalhor said. "Ahmadinejad has a revolutionary management policy. He makes decisions within 24 hours that previous governments used to take within five years."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127..._JI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Iran, U.S.: Going Public Before Getting Together
<font size="5"><center>Iran, U.S.: Going Public Before Getting Together</font size></center>
STRATFOR
Global Intelligence Brief
November 29, 2005
Summary
A leading Iranian newspaper Nov. 29 called on Tehran to accept Washington's offer to meet U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, who one day earlier announced his authorization by U.S. President George W. Bush to hold talks with Iran about Iraqi security. Both sides are now moving towards bringing to the public sphere what they have long been doing via back channels. Despite their caveats that such meetings will address the single issue of stability in Iraq, the talks likely will represent a key milestone towards re-establishing bilateral ties between Iran and the United States.
Analysis
A Nov. 29 editorial in the Iran News, the leading Iranian English-language daily, called on Tehran to respond positively to Washington's offer to hold public and direct bilateral negotiations regarding Iraqi security. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad first made the offer public.
The Bush administration's offer and the Iran Daily editorial indicate that both sides are eager to publicize back-channel talks that have taken place between the parties since before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Together, these developments confirm what we have long said: Public rhetoric notwithstanding, the Bush administration and the clerical regime have engaged in secret talks over Iraq and the Iranian nuclear issue. Each side's cautious tone also constitutes an acknowledgement of how publicizing their secret meetings presents challenges on their respective home fronts, and of how the public acknowledgement could give the other side an unexpected advantage.
Both sides' fears aside, this announced-before-the-fact public meeting could represent a major milestone -- one that could gradually move the two countries toward re-establishing some semblance of bilateral ties.
In mid-2003, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage disclosed having met with former Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi earlier that year. That admission, however, came after the fact, whereas Khalilzad's remarks show Washington giving the world advance notice. The move resembles the Bush administration's offer in the aftermath of the late-2003 devastating earthquake that hit Bam, Iran, to send a high-powered delegation to Iran led by a senior member of the Bush family and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole. Iran rejected that offer.
It appears that Tehran will likely not turn down the opportunity this time around, even though a rift is emerging within the ruling conservative camp between pragmatic conservatives and ultraconservatives over how to achieve Iran's strategic objectives. The two rival factions agree that achieving Iranian national interests necessitates an interface with the United States. But the debate in Iran continues, which explains why the Iran Daily editorial tried to placate the fears of the unelected clerics in the ultraconservative camp, who fear losing their grip on power if U.S.-Iranian relations become too warm.
This would also explain the paper's quotation of Mohammad Javad Larijani, director of international affairs at Iran's judiciary, who reportedly said, "In politics, we should work with our enemies 80 percent of the time and only 20 percent of the time with our friends."
Recently, both senior Iranian Foreign Ministry officials and the U.S. State Department have not only acknowledged behind-the-scenes contacts, they have called for the groundwork to be laid in which both sides could enhance their ties. Further indicators of Washington's desire to engage Tehran include the recent U.S. acceptance that Iran can produce uranium hexafluoride (one step short of enrichment), and hints that circumstances might exist under which Iran could enrich uranium, so long as it could be objectively ensured that Tehran would not divert nuclear resources toward military use.
While the outcome of this U.S.-Iranian public meeting remains to be seen, the meeting is nevertheless bound to raise numerous eyebrows in the region and beyond.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
<font size="5"><center>Iran, U.S.: Going Public Before Getting Together</font size></center>
STRATFOR
Global Intelligence Brief
November 29, 2005
Summary
A leading Iranian newspaper Nov. 29 called on Tehran to accept Washington's offer to meet U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, who one day earlier announced his authorization by U.S. President George W. Bush to hold talks with Iran about Iraqi security. Both sides are now moving towards bringing to the public sphere what they have long been doing via back channels. Despite their caveats that such meetings will address the single issue of stability in Iraq, the talks likely will represent a key milestone towards re-establishing bilateral ties between Iran and the United States.
Analysis
A Nov. 29 editorial in the Iran News, the leading Iranian English-language daily, called on Tehran to respond positively to Washington's offer to hold public and direct bilateral negotiations regarding Iraqi security. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad first made the offer public.
The Bush administration's offer and the Iran Daily editorial indicate that both sides are eager to publicize back-channel talks that have taken place between the parties since before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Together, these developments confirm what we have long said: Public rhetoric notwithstanding, the Bush administration and the clerical regime have engaged in secret talks over Iraq and the Iranian nuclear issue. Each side's cautious tone also constitutes an acknowledgement of how publicizing their secret meetings presents challenges on their respective home fronts, and of how the public acknowledgement could give the other side an unexpected advantage.
Both sides' fears aside, this announced-before-the-fact public meeting could represent a major milestone -- one that could gradually move the two countries toward re-establishing some semblance of bilateral ties.
In mid-2003, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage disclosed having met with former Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi earlier that year. That admission, however, came after the fact, whereas Khalilzad's remarks show Washington giving the world advance notice. The move resembles the Bush administration's offer in the aftermath of the late-2003 devastating earthquake that hit Bam, Iran, to send a high-powered delegation to Iran led by a senior member of the Bush family and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole. Iran rejected that offer.
It appears that Tehran will likely not turn down the opportunity this time around, even though a rift is emerging within the ruling conservative camp between pragmatic conservatives and ultraconservatives over how to achieve Iran's strategic objectives. The two rival factions agree that achieving Iranian national interests necessitates an interface with the United States. But the debate in Iran continues, which explains why the Iran Daily editorial tried to placate the fears of the unelected clerics in the ultraconservative camp, who fear losing their grip on power if U.S.-Iranian relations become too warm.
This would also explain the paper's quotation of Mohammad Javad Larijani, director of international affairs at Iran's judiciary, who reportedly said, "In politics, we should work with our enemies 80 percent of the time and only 20 percent of the time with our friends."
Recently, both senior Iranian Foreign Ministry officials and the U.S. State Department have not only acknowledged behind-the-scenes contacts, they have called for the groundwork to be laid in which both sides could enhance their ties. Further indicators of Washington's desire to engage Tehran include the recent U.S. acceptance that Iran can produce uranium hexafluoride (one step short of enrichment), and hints that circumstances might exist under which Iran could enrich uranium, so long as it could be objectively ensured that Tehran would not divert nuclear resources toward military use.
While the outcome of this U.S.-Iranian public meeting remains to be seen, the meeting is nevertheless bound to raise numerous eyebrows in the region and beyond.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
Iranian President Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'
<font size="6"><center>Iranian President Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'</font size></center>
Dec 14, 6:06 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's hard-line president lashed out with a new outburst at Israel on Wednesday, calling the Nazi Holocaust a "myth" used as a pretext for carving out a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim world.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments drew quick condemnations from Israel, the United States and Europe, which warned he is hurting Iran's position in talks aimed at resolving suspicions about his regime's nuclear program.
The White House said his remarks showed why Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Germany, one of three European Union countries leading the nuclear talks, called his statements "shocking and unacceptable."
Iran and the Europeans are due to resume the U.S.-backed negotiations soon, possibly in late December, trying to find a compromise on reining in Tehran's nuclear program and avoiding a confrontation.
Washington says Iran is secretly trying to build warheads. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, and Ahmadinejad reiterated Wednesday that his regime refuses to give up key processes that can produce weapons-grade material as well as fuel for atomic reactors that generate electricity.
It was difficult to measure the impact that increasing anger over Ahmadinejad might have on the negotiations.
The Europeans have not threatened to call off the talks, which they see as vital to a peaceful resolution of fears over Iran's nuclear ambitions. But Ahmadinejad's words, which come as the top U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has said it is losing patience with Tehran, could lead Europe to take a tougher stance.
So far, Ahmadinejad has appeared to only escalate his rhetoric in the face of widespread international criticism, suggesting he may be seeking to fire up supporters at home.
Some allies warn that he is isolating the country when it needs support for its nuclear program. But supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has final word on all matters, has stood by the president, even calling this week for Palestinian militants to step up their fight to drive Israelis out of Jerusalem.
Ahmadinejad provoked an outcry in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." When that drew international anger, he responded by holding large anti-Israel rallies.
Last week, he expressed doubt about Nazi Germany's slaughter of 6 million European Jews during World War II, raising a new storm of criticism. On Wednesday, he went a step further and said for the first time that he didn't believe the Holocaust happened.
During a tour of southeastern Iran, Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insist the Holocaust occurred, then they are responsible and should pay the price.
"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Zahedan. "If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?"
"This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said.
The White House said Ahmadinejad's words "only underscore why it is so important that the international community continue to work together to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the speech illustrated "the mind-set of the ruling clique in Tehran and indicate clearly the extremist policy goals of the regime."
The German government summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires to express its displeasure.
"I cannot hide the fact that this weighs on bilateral relations and on the chances for the negotiation process," Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in Berlin.
In unusually strong comments, the president of the European Union's administrative body, Jose Manuel Barroso, said Iranians "do not have the president, or the regime, they deserve."
"It calls our attention to the real danger of that regime having an atomic bomb," Barroso added.
EU foreign ministers were likely to discuss Ahmadinejad's comments during an EU summit Thursday, commission spokeswoman Emma Udwin said.
Inside Iran, moderates have called on the Islamic cleric-led regime to rein in the president. His election in June sealed the long decline of Iran's reform movement, which had largely dropped the harsh anti-Israeli and anti-U.S. rhetoric of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and sought to build international ties.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad also took aim at the United States and the West, saying they had harmed Muslims.
"If your civilization consists of aggression, making oppressed people homeless, suffocating the voices of justice and bringing poverty to a majority of the world's people, we say loudly that we hate your hollow civilization," he said.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20051214/D8EGAANO1.html?PG=home&SEC=news
<font size="6"><center>Iranian President Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'</font size></center>
Dec 14, 6:06 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's hard-line president lashed out with a new outburst at Israel on Wednesday, calling the Nazi Holocaust a "myth" used as a pretext for carving out a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim world.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments drew quick condemnations from Israel, the United States and Europe, which warned he is hurting Iran's position in talks aimed at resolving suspicions about his regime's nuclear program.
The White House said his remarks showed why Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Germany, one of three European Union countries leading the nuclear talks, called his statements "shocking and unacceptable."
Iran and the Europeans are due to resume the U.S.-backed negotiations soon, possibly in late December, trying to find a compromise on reining in Tehran's nuclear program and avoiding a confrontation.
Washington says Iran is secretly trying to build warheads. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, and Ahmadinejad reiterated Wednesday that his regime refuses to give up key processes that can produce weapons-grade material as well as fuel for atomic reactors that generate electricity.
It was difficult to measure the impact that increasing anger over Ahmadinejad might have on the negotiations.
The Europeans have not threatened to call off the talks, which they see as vital to a peaceful resolution of fears over Iran's nuclear ambitions. But Ahmadinejad's words, which come as the top U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has said it is losing patience with Tehran, could lead Europe to take a tougher stance.
So far, Ahmadinejad has appeared to only escalate his rhetoric in the face of widespread international criticism, suggesting he may be seeking to fire up supporters at home.
Some allies warn that he is isolating the country when it needs support for its nuclear program. But supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has final word on all matters, has stood by the president, even calling this week for Palestinian militants to step up their fight to drive Israelis out of Jerusalem.
Ahmadinejad provoked an outcry in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." When that drew international anger, he responded by holding large anti-Israel rallies.
Last week, he expressed doubt about Nazi Germany's slaughter of 6 million European Jews during World War II, raising a new storm of criticism. On Wednesday, he went a step further and said for the first time that he didn't believe the Holocaust happened.
During a tour of southeastern Iran, Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insist the Holocaust occurred, then they are responsible and should pay the price.
"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Zahedan. "If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?"
"This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said.
The White House said Ahmadinejad's words "only underscore why it is so important that the international community continue to work together to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the speech illustrated "the mind-set of the ruling clique in Tehran and indicate clearly the extremist policy goals of the regime."
The German government summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires to express its displeasure.
"I cannot hide the fact that this weighs on bilateral relations and on the chances for the negotiation process," Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in Berlin.
In unusually strong comments, the president of the European Union's administrative body, Jose Manuel Barroso, said Iranians "do not have the president, or the regime, they deserve."
"It calls our attention to the real danger of that regime having an atomic bomb," Barroso added.
EU foreign ministers were likely to discuss Ahmadinejad's comments during an EU summit Thursday, commission spokeswoman Emma Udwin said.
Inside Iran, moderates have called on the Islamic cleric-led regime to rein in the president. His election in June sealed the long decline of Iran's reform movement, which had largely dropped the harsh anti-Israeli and anti-U.S. rhetoric of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and sought to build international ties.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad also took aim at the United States and the West, saying they had harmed Muslims.
"If your civilization consists of aggression, making oppressed people homeless, suffocating the voices of justice and bringing poverty to a majority of the world's people, we say loudly that we hate your hollow civilization," he said.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20051214/D8EGAANO1.html?PG=home&SEC=news
Who actually reads all this shit you guys post in this thread? Its all one single opinion and that is to check America from the inside. It needs to be watched true but some of this shit boarders on the subversive but go ahead and do your thing.
Seems to me that Iran is threatening to jump on the nation of Israel and there is no way Israel will allow them to get hold of a nuke and the means to transport that bitch. Them Jews will launch a nuke on Iran with very little debate on the matter. And if Israel launches on Iran, they will be hit damn hard and Israel's friends in the region will support them. Not to mention the US will jump in as well and I don't get the feeling the Bush administration gives a fuck about dropping a nuke on Iran or Syria. I don't really understand all the shit you intellectuals are reading but it seems much less intellectual than all this shit in this thread. Seems to me what Iran has at stake is the same kick in the ass Sadaam's Iraq just took as a result of their need to enter into another country. First Iran then Kuwait.
We can sit around and get intellectual all day but the end result is this mother fuckers running this government right now don't seem to fear very much from public opinion here or abroad. They get it in their heads they are doing the right thing, tell the American public that Iran threatens another Hitler style holocaust against the Jews, show a few images of concentration camps and out go the flags. When you get a backbone like the one Bush administration has, them mother fuckers are more dangerous than these rag heads blowing themselves up for pussy.
-VG
Seems to me that Iran is threatening to jump on the nation of Israel and there is no way Israel will allow them to get hold of a nuke and the means to transport that bitch. Them Jews will launch a nuke on Iran with very little debate on the matter. And if Israel launches on Iran, they will be hit damn hard and Israel's friends in the region will support them. Not to mention the US will jump in as well and I don't get the feeling the Bush administration gives a fuck about dropping a nuke on Iran or Syria. I don't really understand all the shit you intellectuals are reading but it seems much less intellectual than all this shit in this thread. Seems to me what Iran has at stake is the same kick in the ass Sadaam's Iraq just took as a result of their need to enter into another country. First Iran then Kuwait.
We can sit around and get intellectual all day but the end result is this mother fuckers running this government right now don't seem to fear very much from public opinion here or abroad. They get it in their heads they are doing the right thing, tell the American public that Iran threatens another Hitler style holocaust against the Jews, show a few images of concentration camps and out go the flags. When you get a backbone like the one Bush administration has, them mother fuckers are more dangerous than these rag heads blowing themselves up for pussy.
-VG
Re: Iranian President Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'
Those nukes must be close to completion.
Associated Press said:
Those nukes must be close to completion.
Re: Iranian President Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'
<font size="5"><center>Assassination attempt on Iran's Ahmadinejad?</font size></center>
Report: Driver, bodyguard
killed in motorcade ambush
Posted: December 17, 2005
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Gunmen ambushed the motorcade of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leaving his driver and one of his bodyguards dead, however the hard-line leader escaped injury because he was not in the car at the time.
"At 6:50 pm on Thursday, the lead car in the presidential motorcade confronted armed bandits and trouble-makers on the Zabol-Saravan highway," the semi-official Jomhouri Islami reported today. "In the ensuing armed clash, the driver of the vehicle, who was an indigenous member of the security services, and one of the president's bodyguards died, while another bodyguard was wounded."
Tehran often uses "bandits" and "trouble-makers" to identify its political opponents.
No information was offered for Ahmadinejad's location during the shootout or response afterwards. According to Iran Focus News, residents of the city of Zabol in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan report rumors the president himself was the gunmen's target.
"Many people have been rounded up for questioning after the attack and the authorities here were clearly shaken by the incident," a Zabol resident said.
Ahmadinejad had been touring the troubled Sistan-Baloochestan province since Wednesday where ethnic Sunni Baluchis have been fighting for autonomy from Iran's Shiite theocratic government. It was there he made recent comments calling the Holocaust a "myth."
Ahmadinejad returned to Tehran Friday after giving a speech on the need for increased security.
An Iranian student dissident group is reporting rumors that some circles within the Islamic regime may have been involved in the apparent assassination attempt, providing the necessary information to identify the vehicle.
"Atomic Iran" author Jerome Corsi believes this attack will serve as pretext for further repression and a hardening of Iran's resolve to go nuclear.
"Justified as 'security measures,' the regime will undoubtedly use this attack as an excuse to persecute those within Iran who are still bravely pushing for democracy and reform," says Corsi. "Ahmadinejad is taking Iran in a conservative direction and he has the full support of Ayatollah Khamanei. Ahmadinejad’s continuing verbal assaults against Israel suggest that Iran desires a confrontation with Israel and the West, including the United States."
Today, Ahmadinejad stepped up his anti-Israel rhetoric, calling on the world's Muslims to be on guard against the Jewish state. "The Zionist regime is today a threat to the whole Middle East region and therefore Moslems should increase their vigilance against this regime," Ahmadinejad told local officials.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47956
<font size="5"><center>Assassination attempt on Iran's Ahmadinejad?</font size></center>
Report: Driver, bodyguard
killed in motorcade ambush
Posted: December 17, 2005
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Gunmen ambushed the motorcade of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leaving his driver and one of his bodyguards dead, however the hard-line leader escaped injury because he was not in the car at the time.
"At 6:50 pm on Thursday, the lead car in the presidential motorcade confronted armed bandits and trouble-makers on the Zabol-Saravan highway," the semi-official Jomhouri Islami reported today. "In the ensuing armed clash, the driver of the vehicle, who was an indigenous member of the security services, and one of the president's bodyguards died, while another bodyguard was wounded."
Tehran often uses "bandits" and "trouble-makers" to identify its political opponents.
No information was offered for Ahmadinejad's location during the shootout or response afterwards. According to Iran Focus News, residents of the city of Zabol in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan report rumors the president himself was the gunmen's target.
"Many people have been rounded up for questioning after the attack and the authorities here were clearly shaken by the incident," a Zabol resident said.
Ahmadinejad had been touring the troubled Sistan-Baloochestan province since Wednesday where ethnic Sunni Baluchis have been fighting for autonomy from Iran's Shiite theocratic government. It was there he made recent comments calling the Holocaust a "myth."
Ahmadinejad returned to Tehran Friday after giving a speech on the need for increased security.
An Iranian student dissident group is reporting rumors that some circles within the Islamic regime may have been involved in the apparent assassination attempt, providing the necessary information to identify the vehicle.
"Atomic Iran" author Jerome Corsi believes this attack will serve as pretext for further repression and a hardening of Iran's resolve to go nuclear.
"Justified as 'security measures,' the regime will undoubtedly use this attack as an excuse to persecute those within Iran who are still bravely pushing for democracy and reform," says Corsi. "Ahmadinejad is taking Iran in a conservative direction and he has the full support of Ayatollah Khamanei. Ahmadinejad’s continuing verbal assaults against Israel suggest that Iran desires a confrontation with Israel and the West, including the United States."
Today, Ahmadinejad stepped up his anti-Israel rhetoric, calling on the world's Muslims to be on guard against the Jewish state. "The Zionist regime is today a threat to the whole Middle East region and therefore Moslems should increase their vigilance against this regime," Ahmadinejad told local officials.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47956
Re: Iranian President Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'
<font size="5"><center>Attempted assassination of Iran president ?</font size>
<font size="4"> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s motorocade was ambushed,
one of his bodyguards killed and a second injured near
Zabol, in the restive southeastern province of Baluchistan Friday</font size></center>
DEBKAFile
December 17, 2005, 10:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
This is reported by the semi-official Jomhouri Islami quoted by Iran Focus
The assailants are described as armed bandits and trouble-makers, Tehran’s terms for anti-government dissidents and rebels. The president's whereabouts are not mentioned.
On Nov. 18, DEBKA-Net-Weekly 230 revealed that certain power-groups in the Islamic regime have put out a contract on the blabbermouth president, fearing that as champion of the most way-out factions of the Revolutionary Guards, he may be gathering momentum for a coup.
http://www.debka.com/index.php
<font size="5"><center>Attempted assassination of Iran president ?</font size>
<font size="4"> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s motorocade was ambushed,
one of his bodyguards killed and a second injured near
Zabol, in the restive southeastern province of Baluchistan Friday</font size></center>
DEBKAFile
December 17, 2005, 10:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
This is reported by the semi-official Jomhouri Islami quoted by Iran Focus
The assailants are described as armed bandits and trouble-makers, Tehran’s terms for anti-government dissidents and rebels. The president's whereabouts are not mentioned.
On Nov. 18, DEBKA-Net-Weekly 230 revealed that certain power-groups in the Islamic regime have put out a contract on the blabbermouth president, fearing that as champion of the most way-out factions of the Revolutionary Guards, he may be gathering momentum for a coup.
http://www.debka.com/index.php
Iran's President Bans All Western Music
Iran's President Bans All Western Music
By NASSER KARIMI
52 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations — an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Today, though, the sounds of hip-hop can be heard blaring from car radios in Tehran's streets, and Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California" regularly accompany Iranian broadcasts.
No more — the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban all Western music, including classical music, on state broadcast outlets.
"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site.
Iranian guitarist Babak Riahipour lamented what he called a "terrible" decision. "The decision shows a lack of knowledge and experience," he said.
Music was outlawed by Khomeini soon after the 1979 revolution. Many musicians went abroad and built an Iranian music industry in Los Angeles.
But as revolutionary fervor started to fade, some light classical music was allowed on Iranian radio and television; some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980s.
In the 1990s, particularly during the presidency of reformist Mohammad Khatami starting in 1997, authorities began relaxing restrictions further. These days in Iran, Western music, films and clothing are widely available in Iran. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely available on the black market.
Ahmadinejad's order means the state broadcasting authority must execute the decree and prepare a report on its implementation within six months, according to the IRAN Persian daily.
Earlier this month, Ali Rahbari, conductor of Tehran's symphony orchestra, resigned and left Iran to protest the treatment of the music industry in Iran.
Before leaving, he played Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to packed Tehran theater houses over several nights last month — its first performance in Tehran since the 1979 revolution. The performances angered many conservatives and prompted newspaper columns accusing Rahbari of promoting Western values.
The ban applies to state-run radio and TV. But Iranians with satellite dishes can get broadcasts originating outside the country.
Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles, following the eight years of reformist-led rule under Khatami.
During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what he called the Western cultural invasion of Iran and promote Islamic values.
Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.
He also has issued stinging criticisms of Israel, calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and describing the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth."
International concerns are high over Iran's nuclear program, with the United States accusing Tehran of pursuing an atomic weapons program. Iran denies the claims.
The latest media ban also includes censorship of content of films.
"Supervision of content from films, TV series and their voice-overs is emphasized in order to support spiritual cinema and to eliminate triteness and violence," the council said in a statement on its Web site.
The council has also issued a ban on foreign movies that promote "arrogant powers," an apparent reference to the United States.
The probibitions mirror those imposed in neighboring Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, which imposed a strict version of Islamic law, including a ban on music and film. The Taliban was ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in late 2001.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219...lFI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Iran's President Bans All Western Music
By NASSER KARIMI
52 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations — an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Today, though, the sounds of hip-hop can be heard blaring from car radios in Tehran's streets, and Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California" regularly accompany Iranian broadcasts.
No more — the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban all Western music, including classical music, on state broadcast outlets.
"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site.
Iranian guitarist Babak Riahipour lamented what he called a "terrible" decision. "The decision shows a lack of knowledge and experience," he said.
Music was outlawed by Khomeini soon after the 1979 revolution. Many musicians went abroad and built an Iranian music industry in Los Angeles.
But as revolutionary fervor started to fade, some light classical music was allowed on Iranian radio and television; some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980s.
In the 1990s, particularly during the presidency of reformist Mohammad Khatami starting in 1997, authorities began relaxing restrictions further. These days in Iran, Western music, films and clothing are widely available in Iran. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely available on the black market.
Ahmadinejad's order means the state broadcasting authority must execute the decree and prepare a report on its implementation within six months, according to the IRAN Persian daily.
Earlier this month, Ali Rahbari, conductor of Tehran's symphony orchestra, resigned and left Iran to protest the treatment of the music industry in Iran.
Before leaving, he played Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to packed Tehran theater houses over several nights last month — its first performance in Tehran since the 1979 revolution. The performances angered many conservatives and prompted newspaper columns accusing Rahbari of promoting Western values.
The ban applies to state-run radio and TV. But Iranians with satellite dishes can get broadcasts originating outside the country.
Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles, following the eight years of reformist-led rule under Khatami.
During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what he called the Western cultural invasion of Iran and promote Islamic values.
Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.
He also has issued stinging criticisms of Israel, calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and describing the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth."
International concerns are high over Iran's nuclear program, with the United States accusing Tehran of pursuing an atomic weapons program. Iran denies the claims.
The latest media ban also includes censorship of content of films.
"Supervision of content from films, TV series and their voice-overs is emphasized in order to support spiritual cinema and to eliminate triteness and violence," the council said in a statement on its Web site.
The council has also issued a ban on foreign movies that promote "arrogant powers," an apparent reference to the United States.
The probibitions mirror those imposed in neighboring Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, which imposed a strict version of Islamic law, including a ban on music and film. The Taliban was ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in late 2001.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219...lFI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Re: Iranian President Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'
.
<font size="5"><center>Iran: Assassination, Confusion or Disinformation?</font size></center>
STRATFOR
Global Intelligence Brief
December 20, 2005
Summary
Iran denied Dec. 19 that an ambush against the presidential motorcade Dec. 14 in the southeastern province of Sistan and Balochistan was an assassination attempt on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The contradictory reports on the incident raise more questions than answers, and are likely part of a disinformation campaign launched by Tehran to downplay any potential threats against the Iranian president.
Analysis
The semi-official Jomhouri Islami Iranian newspaper acknowledged Dec. 17 that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's motorcade was attacked Dec. 14 by "armed bandits and trouble-makers on the Zabol-Saravan highway" in the country's southeastern province of Sistan and Balochistan. According to Iranian government officials, one of Ahmadinejad's security guards and a locally hired driver died in the attack, and another security guard was injured. Two gunmen also reportedly died in the firefight.
The Iranian government then released a statement Dec. 19 that said Ahmadinejad was not present at the time of the attack and that the firefight was not an assassination attempt on the Iranian president. Moreover, government officials claimed that the vehicle that was assaulted was not part of the president's caravan and that security guards traveling along the highway were deployed as part of the security measures employed for the president's visit.
The details coming out of Iran regarding the events of the evening of Dec. 14 are nebulous. Iranian officials have said thus far that Ahmadinejad was delivering a speech in Zahedan when local rebels mounted an attack on what they viewed as a high-profile target. There was no mention of explosives or weapons used by the unknown number of "bandits." The timing of the assault is unclear as well -- official Iranian media reports have cited both Dec. 14 and Dec. 15 as dates of the attack, perhaps a symptom of circular erroneous reporting.
The sparsely populated and restive province of Sistan and Balochistan is not exactly a place where law and order prevail. Drug smugglers and bandits regularly clash with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in eastern Iran, though it is unlikely that a group of rogue criminals looking for loot decided to spontaneously attack an armed presidential motorcade and risk a likely defeat.
The approximately 2.1 million Iranian Baloch residing in the eastern province have long resented the regime in Tehran and claim the government brutally oppresses and neglects the Baloch population, 35 to 50 percent of whom are unemployed and most of whom are Sunni. Anti-Persian and anti-Shiite sentiment pervades the impoverished province, leaving no shortage of dissidents with an interest in bringing down the regime. Though opposition groups in the region have largely laid low for fear of massive government reprisals, a local Baloch group might have seized the opportunity to target the Iranian president.
Ahmadinejad was visiting the area to shore up support for his administration and deliver a number of public speeches -- the most memorable of which included a proposal to relocate Israel to Alaska. As this was a highly publicized visit, the announcements of his speeches would include dates and times to attract crowds. It would not be terribly difficult for an anti-regime Sunni Baloch group to figure out the president's routes with this information, especially since the area contains so few roads.
The attack occurred near the town of Zabol, which is more than 200 air miles from Zahedan, where Ahmadinejad was supposed to be making his speech. It is highly unlikely that the president would be traveling on the ground in such a sparsely populated and restive area, rather than by air. There is a fair chance that the vehicle that was attacked was scouting out the area as part of the president's security protocol. If the president were traveling by car for this lengthy journey, he would likely travel with a decoy motorcade.
Whatever happened in Sistan and Balochistan on Dec. 14, the regime must now engage in damage control to minimize any domestic threats against Ahmadinejad. The government's aim is to deflect blame to rogue "bandits" and play up the idea of the lawlessness of the region to rid the Iranian public's mind of any idea of assassination plans against Ahmadinejad. The lack of clarity surrounding the reports and the delayed statements on what actually occurred reveal the Iranian regime's confused state, as is often the case when such incidents occur in Iran. Reports of mass arrests to stamp out the perpetrators and cripple any fledgling resistance movement in the Baloch region can now be expected.
Just as the Ahvazi Arab nationalists have stirred up trouble for the regime in the oil-rich region of Khuzestan, the Sunni Baloch resistance could prove valuable to Western intelligence agencies with an interest in destabilizing the hard-line regime in Tehran. The United States maintained close contacts with the Baloch, but then withdrew support after 2001 when Iran promised to repatriate any U.S. airmen that had to land in Iran due to damage sustained in combat operations in Afghanistan. These contacts could very well be revived to sow turmoil in Iran's southeastern province and work against the ruling regime. Such a move would well serve the purpose of many Western governments aiming to exacerbate a rift within Iran's ruling clerical establishment and silence the Islamic republic's firebrand president.
QueEx said:
.
<font size="5"><center>Iran: Assassination, Confusion or Disinformation?</font size></center>
STRATFOR
Global Intelligence Brief
December 20, 2005
Summary
Iran denied Dec. 19 that an ambush against the presidential motorcade Dec. 14 in the southeastern province of Sistan and Balochistan was an assassination attempt on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The contradictory reports on the incident raise more questions than answers, and are likely part of a disinformation campaign launched by Tehran to downplay any potential threats against the Iranian president.
Analysis
The semi-official Jomhouri Islami Iranian newspaper acknowledged Dec. 17 that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's motorcade was attacked Dec. 14 by "armed bandits and trouble-makers on the Zabol-Saravan highway" in the country's southeastern province of Sistan and Balochistan. According to Iranian government officials, one of Ahmadinejad's security guards and a locally hired driver died in the attack, and another security guard was injured. Two gunmen also reportedly died in the firefight.
The Iranian government then released a statement Dec. 19 that said Ahmadinejad was not present at the time of the attack and that the firefight was not an assassination attempt on the Iranian president. Moreover, government officials claimed that the vehicle that was assaulted was not part of the president's caravan and that security guards traveling along the highway were deployed as part of the security measures employed for the president's visit.
The details coming out of Iran regarding the events of the evening of Dec. 14 are nebulous. Iranian officials have said thus far that Ahmadinejad was delivering a speech in Zahedan when local rebels mounted an attack on what they viewed as a high-profile target. There was no mention of explosives or weapons used by the unknown number of "bandits." The timing of the assault is unclear as well -- official Iranian media reports have cited both Dec. 14 and Dec. 15 as dates of the attack, perhaps a symptom of circular erroneous reporting.
The sparsely populated and restive province of Sistan and Balochistan is not exactly a place where law and order prevail. Drug smugglers and bandits regularly clash with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in eastern Iran, though it is unlikely that a group of rogue criminals looking for loot decided to spontaneously attack an armed presidential motorcade and risk a likely defeat.
The approximately 2.1 million Iranian Baloch residing in the eastern province have long resented the regime in Tehran and claim the government brutally oppresses and neglects the Baloch population, 35 to 50 percent of whom are unemployed and most of whom are Sunni. Anti-Persian and anti-Shiite sentiment pervades the impoverished province, leaving no shortage of dissidents with an interest in bringing down the regime. Though opposition groups in the region have largely laid low for fear of massive government reprisals, a local Baloch group might have seized the opportunity to target the Iranian president.
Ahmadinejad was visiting the area to shore up support for his administration and deliver a number of public speeches -- the most memorable of which included a proposal to relocate Israel to Alaska. As this was a highly publicized visit, the announcements of his speeches would include dates and times to attract crowds. It would not be terribly difficult for an anti-regime Sunni Baloch group to figure out the president's routes with this information, especially since the area contains so few roads.
The attack occurred near the town of Zabol, which is more than 200 air miles from Zahedan, where Ahmadinejad was supposed to be making his speech. It is highly unlikely that the president would be traveling on the ground in such a sparsely populated and restive area, rather than by air. There is a fair chance that the vehicle that was attacked was scouting out the area as part of the president's security protocol. If the president were traveling by car for this lengthy journey, he would likely travel with a decoy motorcade.
Whatever happened in Sistan and Balochistan on Dec. 14, the regime must now engage in damage control to minimize any domestic threats against Ahmadinejad. The government's aim is to deflect blame to rogue "bandits" and play up the idea of the lawlessness of the region to rid the Iranian public's mind of any idea of assassination plans against Ahmadinejad. The lack of clarity surrounding the reports and the delayed statements on what actually occurred reveal the Iranian regime's confused state, as is often the case when such incidents occur in Iran. Reports of mass arrests to stamp out the perpetrators and cripple any fledgling resistance movement in the Baloch region can now be expected.
Just as the Ahvazi Arab nationalists have stirred up trouble for the regime in the oil-rich region of Khuzestan, the Sunni Baloch resistance could prove valuable to Western intelligence agencies with an interest in destabilizing the hard-line regime in Tehran. The United States maintained close contacts with the Baloch, but then withdrew support after 2001 when Iran promised to repatriate any U.S. airmen that had to land in Iran due to damage sustained in combat operations in Afghanistan. These contacts could very well be revived to sow turmoil in Iran's southeastern province and work against the ruling regime. Such a move would well serve the purpose of many Western governments aiming to exacerbate a rift within Iran's ruling clerical establishment and silence the Islamic republic's firebrand president.
Re: Iran's President Bans All Western Music
QueEx
Interesting. I came across a story yesterday comparing this president to 79 regime. Wonder if this attempt to block out all western influences can be effective? -doubt it. If so, can we emulate it along the southern U.S. border?Greed said:
QueEx
Re: Iran's President Bans All Western Music
[frame]http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23F2C01B-F7E6-4D4C-BC0F-F0BD15A7C1BF.htm[/frame]
[hide]Iran, Russia to hold nuclear talks
Thursday 29 December 2005, 19:35 Makka Time, 16:35 GMT
Top Iranian and Russian officials have agreed to hold talks on a Russian proposal aimed a resolving Tehran's nuclear standoff with the West, Reuters reports quoting an Iranian diplomat close to the talks.
The proposal, which is backed by Washington and the European Union, involves the creation of a joint Iranian-Russian company to enrich uranium in Russia.
The plan has been put forward by Moscow in a bid to allay international concerns that Iran could manufacture highly enriched uranium on its own soil to build atomic weapons.
Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to a low-grade, suitable for use in atomic power reactors.
Hossein Entezami, a spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told AFP that "Iran has received the Russian proposal and is examining it", one day after a senior official acknowledged the proposal for the first time.
However, the Russian Defence Ministry on Thursday denied any conversation between Larijani and Ivanov about Iranian nuclear enrichment in Russia, with a spokesman calling such reports "false".
Change of tone
Iranian officials had previously said they would reject any plan which denied Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own
soil.
But in a sudden change of tone, a senior official said on Wednesday Tehran would "seriously and enthusiastically" study the Russian plan.
Iran says it only wants to enrich
uranium into power-plant fuel
The Iranian diplomat, speaking on Thursday to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said the agreement for talks on the proposal came during a telephone conversation between Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, and Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defence minister.
Larijani told Ivanov there were "ambiguities and problems" with the Russian plan but that "the outline of the proposal can be reviewed", the diplomat said.
Ivanov agreed to send a delegation to Tehran led by one of his deputies for further talks, the diplomat said, without specifying when they would take place.
The diplomat added that both sides had noted that their talks were unrelated to Iran's ongoing nuclear negotiations with the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France.
Little progress
The Europeans are hoping the compromise can bring a breakthough in deadlocked negotiations aimed at ensuring Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons.
The US says Iran does not lack
non-nuclear sources of energy
Talks between Iran and Britain, France and Germany resumed earlier this month, making little progress, and are to continue in January.
Iran says its nuclear programme has the sole aim of making fuel for atomic reactors that would generate electricity and denies US charges it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Hardliners within the conservative camp have denounced the Russian proposal. Hardline lawmaker, Saeed Aboutaleb, described the Russian proposal as a "dirty trick".
The nuclear programme is regarded as a source of national pride in Iran, and any government abandoning enrichment likely would lose support.
Reuters [/hide]
[frame]http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23F2C01B-F7E6-4D4C-BC0F-F0BD15A7C1BF.htm[/frame]
[hide]Iran, Russia to hold nuclear talks
Thursday 29 December 2005, 19:35 Makka Time, 16:35 GMT
Top Iranian and Russian officials have agreed to hold talks on a Russian proposal aimed a resolving Tehran's nuclear standoff with the West, Reuters reports quoting an Iranian diplomat close to the talks.
The proposal, which is backed by Washington and the European Union, involves the creation of a joint Iranian-Russian company to enrich uranium in Russia.
The plan has been put forward by Moscow in a bid to allay international concerns that Iran could manufacture highly enriched uranium on its own soil to build atomic weapons.
Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to a low-grade, suitable for use in atomic power reactors.
Hossein Entezami, a spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told AFP that "Iran has received the Russian proposal and is examining it", one day after a senior official acknowledged the proposal for the first time.
However, the Russian Defence Ministry on Thursday denied any conversation between Larijani and Ivanov about Iranian nuclear enrichment in Russia, with a spokesman calling such reports "false".
Change of tone
Iranian officials had previously said they would reject any plan which denied Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own
soil.
But in a sudden change of tone, a senior official said on Wednesday Tehran would "seriously and enthusiastically" study the Russian plan.
Iran says it only wants to enrich
uranium into power-plant fuel
The Iranian diplomat, speaking on Thursday to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said the agreement for talks on the proposal came during a telephone conversation between Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, and Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defence minister.
Larijani told Ivanov there were "ambiguities and problems" with the Russian plan but that "the outline of the proposal can be reviewed", the diplomat said.
Ivanov agreed to send a delegation to Tehran led by one of his deputies for further talks, the diplomat said, without specifying when they would take place.
The diplomat added that both sides had noted that their talks were unrelated to Iran's ongoing nuclear negotiations with the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France.
Little progress
The Europeans are hoping the compromise can bring a breakthough in deadlocked negotiations aimed at ensuring Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons.
The US says Iran does not lack
non-nuclear sources of energy
Talks between Iran and Britain, France and Germany resumed earlier this month, making little progress, and are to continue in January.
Iran says its nuclear programme has the sole aim of making fuel for atomic reactors that would generate electricity and denies US charges it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Hardliners within the conservative camp have denounced the Russian proposal. Hardline lawmaker, Saeed Aboutaleb, described the Russian proposal as a "dirty trick".
The nuclear programme is regarded as a source of national pride in Iran, and any government abandoning enrichment likely would lose support.
Reuters [/hide]
Iran Closes Newspaper Bans Women's Publications
<font size="5"><center>Iran closes newspaper and bans women's publication</font size></center>
Reuters
January 2, 2006
TEHRAN (Reuters) - The Iranian government on Monday ordered the closure of a daily newspaper and banned a new women's bi-weekly from publication in the first media crackdown since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in August.
"The Supervisory Board on the Press agreed to the temporary closure of Asia newspaper and Nour-e Banovan and ordered their cases sent to court," said the Culture Ministry in the ban, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.
No reason was given for the closure and ban although a journalist at the economic daily Asia said the paper had been given a warning in recent months for printing photographs of women considered to have been improperly dressed.
Nour-e Banovan, a planned bi-weekly publication aimed at women, has not yet been published.
More than 100 publications have been closed by the Iranian government since 2000 although many have re-opened under different names and scores of titles still exist.
Reformist journalist Isa Saharkhiz said it was rare for the government, instead of the judiciary, to order the bans.
"The supervisory board had rarely in the past ordered the closure of a newspaper. The ban by the board indicates a new round of pressure on the press," he told Reuters.
http://thestaronline.com/news/story...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-230179-1&sec=Worldupdates
Greed said:
<font size="5"><center>Iran closes newspaper and bans women's publication</font size></center>
Reuters
January 2, 2006
TEHRAN (Reuters) - The Iranian government on Monday ordered the closure of a daily newspaper and banned a new women's bi-weekly from publication in the first media crackdown since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in August.
"The Supervisory Board on the Press agreed to the temporary closure of Asia newspaper and Nour-e Banovan and ordered their cases sent to court," said the Culture Ministry in the ban, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.
No reason was given for the closure and ban although a journalist at the economic daily Asia said the paper had been given a warning in recent months for printing photographs of women considered to have been improperly dressed.
Nour-e Banovan, a planned bi-weekly publication aimed at women, has not yet been published.
More than 100 publications have been closed by the Iranian government since 2000 although many have re-opened under different names and scores of titles still exist.
Reformist journalist Isa Saharkhiz said it was rare for the government, instead of the judiciary, to order the bans.
"The supervisory board had rarely in the past ordered the closure of a newspaper. The ban by the board indicates a new round of pressure on the press," he told Reuters.
http://thestaronline.com/news/story...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-230179-1&sec=Worldupdates
Re: Iran Closes Newspaper Bans Women's Publications
<font size="5"><center>UK cleared nuclear cargo to Iran</font size>
<font size="4">Defence experts demand tightening of export regulations
on potential weapon materials </font size></center>
The Observer
Antony Barnett
Sunday January 8, 2006
British officials have allowed the export to Iran of a cargo of radioactive material that experts believe could be used in a nuclear weapons programme, The Observer can reveal.
The disclosure has prompted calls for an inquiry into how the international trade in such compounds is controlled.
On 31 August a truck carrying 1,000kg of zirconium silicate supplied by a British firm was stopped by Bulgarian customs at the Turkish border on its way to Tehran, after travelling 2,400 kilometres (1,500 miles) from Britain, through Germany and Romania, without being stopped. Zirconium can be used as a component of a nuclear programme. According to one expert, it is used in nuclear reactors to stop fuel rods corroding and can also be used as part of a nuclear warhead. The metal can be extracted from zirconium silicate. It is because the compound can be used for military purposes that its trade is usually tightly controlled.
The fact that a British firm was allowed to sell the compound without scrutiny will raise questions for the British government over its controls on sensitive materials. Intelligence documents disclosed last week in the Guardian detailed how Iran is creating agencies and middlemen to procure equipment and know-how in Europe in a covert attempt to build nuclear weapons. The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is expected this week to order the resumption of tests on machinery that can be used to make weapons-grade uranium.
The official who stopped the truck was alerted after its cargo emitted unusual radioactivity levels. Bulgarian officials said that the Turkish driver was arrested on 31 August. He was investigated 'for violating international treaties... by transferring across the border dangerous wastes, toxic chemical substances, biological agents, toxics and radioactive materials'. The Bulgarians discovered the exporter was a British firm and alerted the UK embassy in Sofia, which informed London on 7 September.
There are technical rules that control the trade in zirconium silicate. These controls focus on how much of the material contains hafnium, another rare metal. The British view is that zirconium sulphate with more than 0.05 per cent of hafnium does not require a licence, as it is difficult to refine - although this is challenged by some experts. After a two-month investigation involving the British and Bulgarian authorities, it was agreed that the British cargo did not need an export licence and could be released and driven to Iran.
A Department of Trade and Industry spokeswoman said: 'The DTI informed the Bulgarian authorities that the goods as described were not controlled under UK export control (as the hafnium content of the sand was 1.1 per cent by weight) and did not therefore require an export licence... this particular case raised no WMD end-use concerns.'
However, John Large, an independent nuclear consultant, said: 'It is not a very sophisticated process to extract the zirconium from such material. Even though it appears that technically this cargo does not fall within the international controls, I would still be concerned. Zirconium is used for two purposes: one for cladding nuclear fuel rods inside a reactor and as material for a nuclear weapon. If Iran wanted this material for any illicit purposes, this would be one way it could get its hands on it.'
Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay has asked a number of parliamentary questions on the export of zirconium silicate from the UK, and wants the DTI to review its rules governing the export of the material.
· Additional reporting by Matthew Brunwasser in Sofia.
antony.barnett@observer.co.uk
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1681851,00.html
<font size="5"><center>UK cleared nuclear cargo to Iran</font size>
<font size="4">Defence experts demand tightening of export regulations
on potential weapon materials </font size></center>
The Observer
Antony Barnett
Sunday January 8, 2006
British officials have allowed the export to Iran of a cargo of radioactive material that experts believe could be used in a nuclear weapons programme, The Observer can reveal.
The disclosure has prompted calls for an inquiry into how the international trade in such compounds is controlled.
On 31 August a truck carrying 1,000kg of zirconium silicate supplied by a British firm was stopped by Bulgarian customs at the Turkish border on its way to Tehran, after travelling 2,400 kilometres (1,500 miles) from Britain, through Germany and Romania, without being stopped. Zirconium can be used as a component of a nuclear programme. According to one expert, it is used in nuclear reactors to stop fuel rods corroding and can also be used as part of a nuclear warhead. The metal can be extracted from zirconium silicate. It is because the compound can be used for military purposes that its trade is usually tightly controlled.
The fact that a British firm was allowed to sell the compound without scrutiny will raise questions for the British government over its controls on sensitive materials. Intelligence documents disclosed last week in the Guardian detailed how Iran is creating agencies and middlemen to procure equipment and know-how in Europe in a covert attempt to build nuclear weapons. The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is expected this week to order the resumption of tests on machinery that can be used to make weapons-grade uranium.
The official who stopped the truck was alerted after its cargo emitted unusual radioactivity levels. Bulgarian officials said that the Turkish driver was arrested on 31 August. He was investigated 'for violating international treaties... by transferring across the border dangerous wastes, toxic chemical substances, biological agents, toxics and radioactive materials'. The Bulgarians discovered the exporter was a British firm and alerted the UK embassy in Sofia, which informed London on 7 September.
There are technical rules that control the trade in zirconium silicate. These controls focus on how much of the material contains hafnium, another rare metal. The British view is that zirconium sulphate with more than 0.05 per cent of hafnium does not require a licence, as it is difficult to refine - although this is challenged by some experts. After a two-month investigation involving the British and Bulgarian authorities, it was agreed that the British cargo did not need an export licence and could be released and driven to Iran.
A Department of Trade and Industry spokeswoman said: 'The DTI informed the Bulgarian authorities that the goods as described were not controlled under UK export control (as the hafnium content of the sand was 1.1 per cent by weight) and did not therefore require an export licence... this particular case raised no WMD end-use concerns.'
However, John Large, an independent nuclear consultant, said: 'It is not a very sophisticated process to extract the zirconium from such material. Even though it appears that technically this cargo does not fall within the international controls, I would still be concerned. Zirconium is used for two purposes: one for cladding nuclear fuel rods inside a reactor and as material for a nuclear weapon. If Iran wanted this material for any illicit purposes, this would be one way it could get its hands on it.'
Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay has asked a number of parliamentary questions on the export of zirconium silicate from the UK, and wants the DTI to review its rules governing the export of the material.
· Additional reporting by Matthew Brunwasser in Sofia.
antony.barnett@observer.co.uk
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1681851,00.html
Re: Iran Closes Newspaper Bans Women's Publications
<font size="5"><center>Iran has crossed the point of no-return </font size>
<font size="4">to a nuclear weapon - undeterred by international censure</font size></center>
DEBKAFile
January 10, 2006, 10:17 PM (GMT+02:00)
The cries of outrage over Iran’s bald-faced removal of the seals at its Natanz nuclear facility have a familiar ring. They also evoked little more from the turbaned rulers of Tehran than a cool shrug.
The seals to shut down equipment for making centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium were affixed two years ago by the UN nuclear watchdog’s inspectors at the subterranean Natanz facility.
During this period, Tehran broke one pledge after another and defied every international rebuke, as diplomacy led by France, Britain and Germany, alternated with unfulfilled threats of UN sanctions, to grant the Iranians precious time to forge ahead with its atomic weapons program. Tehran cannily prepared the way for its fateful step at Natanz Monday, Jan. 10, by calling it the resumption of the innocent-sounding “nuclear research.”
Now, belatedly, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s director, Dr Mohammed ElBaradei warns that, as well as breaking the international seals at Natanz, Iran will before Wednesday remove seals on two other connected sites. French president Jacques Chirac has reacted with dismay, UK foreign secretary Jack Straw with “huge regret”, German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Iran had crossed a line, Israel is tied down by its prime minister unconscious in hospital. Its chief of staff, Lt. Gen- Dan Halutz conceded Monday that the fight against Iran’s nuclearization must be an international effort in which Israel cannot take the lead. And the White House is till undecided about referring Iran’s case to the UN Security Council.
But the Iranians clearly don’t give a hoot about their EU-3 negotiating partners, the IAEA, the Americans or the Israelis. Because they have used the time afforded them by sterile diplomacy to manipulate their way to their objectives, as DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources reveal:
The Islamic Republic’s rulers are fairly sure Moscow and Beijing will veto Security Council sanctions. The Russians are motivated by their heavy investments, past and potential, in Iran’s nuclear industry. The Chinese are heavily dependent on Iranian gas and keen to expand their stake in Tehran’s oil industry, partly in order to compete with the Russians.
None of this is new; it has been going on for six years. Iran’s attempts to hide its nuclear bomb program go back more than a decade. Therefore, recurring threats to submit Iran to UN sanctions have always been hollow ones and never had the slightest deterrent effect on Tehran.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1619
<font size="5"><center>Iran has crossed the point of no-return </font size>
<font size="4">to a nuclear weapon - undeterred by international censure</font size></center>
DEBKAFile
January 10, 2006, 10:17 PM (GMT+02:00)
The cries of outrage over Iran’s bald-faced removal of the seals at its Natanz nuclear facility have a familiar ring. They also evoked little more from the turbaned rulers of Tehran than a cool shrug.
The seals to shut down equipment for making centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium were affixed two years ago by the UN nuclear watchdog’s inspectors at the subterranean Natanz facility.
During this period, Tehran broke one pledge after another and defied every international rebuke, as diplomacy led by France, Britain and Germany, alternated with unfulfilled threats of UN sanctions, to grant the Iranians precious time to forge ahead with its atomic weapons program. Tehran cannily prepared the way for its fateful step at Natanz Monday, Jan. 10, by calling it the resumption of the innocent-sounding “nuclear research.”
Now, belatedly, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s director, Dr Mohammed ElBaradei warns that, as well as breaking the international seals at Natanz, Iran will before Wednesday remove seals on two other connected sites. French president Jacques Chirac has reacted with dismay, UK foreign secretary Jack Straw with “huge regret”, German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Iran had crossed a line, Israel is tied down by its prime minister unconscious in hospital. Its chief of staff, Lt. Gen- Dan Halutz conceded Monday that the fight against Iran’s nuclearization must be an international effort in which Israel cannot take the lead. And the White House is till undecided about referring Iran’s case to the UN Security Council.
But the Iranians clearly don’t give a hoot about their EU-3 negotiating partners, the IAEA, the Americans or the Israelis. Because they have used the time afforded them by sterile diplomacy to manipulate their way to their objectives, as DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources reveal:
1. Thousands of P2 and P1 type centrifuges, developed under cover of the two-year purported suspension, can go into action free of international curbs. The IAEA statement said uranium hexafluoride, a uranium gas - can be fed into cascades of centrifuges to produce low-level nuclear fuel or weapons-grade material. This can happen within a week or two.
2. The intelligence consensus reaching our sources is that within six weeks to two months, the centrifuges will have produced enough enriched uranium to build a single nuclear weapon. Tehran has reached this point of no-return with no real opposition.
2. The intelligence consensus reaching our sources is that within six weeks to two months, the centrifuges will have produced enough enriched uranium to build a single nuclear weapon. Tehran has reached this point of no-return with no real opposition.
The Islamic Republic’s rulers are fairly sure Moscow and Beijing will veto Security Council sanctions. The Russians are motivated by their heavy investments, past and potential, in Iran’s nuclear industry. The Chinese are heavily dependent on Iranian gas and keen to expand their stake in Tehran’s oil industry, partly in order to compete with the Russians.
None of this is new; it has been going on for six years. Iran’s attempts to hide its nuclear bomb program go back more than a decade. Therefore, recurring threats to submit Iran to UN sanctions have always been hollow ones and never had the slightest deterrent effect on Tehran.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1619
Re: Iran Closes Newspaper Bans Women's Publications
[frame]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17807811%255E2703,00.html[/frame]
[hide]Russia backs US escalation on Iran
The Australian
Correspondents in Washington and London
January 13, 2006
THE Bush administration has secured a guarantee from Russia that it will not block US efforts to take Tehran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council, The Washington Post reported yesterday.
The commitment was made in a phone call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice following Iran's resumption of sensitive nuclear work, the newspaper said.
Mr Lavrov told Dr Rice that Russia would abstain, rather than vote against US efforts to move the issue from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Security Council, the report said.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that Dr Rice had spoken with Mr Lavrov and other foreign ministers but did not divulge details.
"It is more likely than ever that we are headed to the Security Council on this question," Mr McCormack said.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney agreed, saying referral to the council would be the probable next step.
But the newspaper said Russia's pledge only concerned a vote inside the IAEA and US officials remain uncertain as to how Moscow, a traditional ally of Iran's, would react if the issue got to the council, where Moscow is one of five countries with veto power. US officials will lobby China for a similar commitment.
Last night China's Foreign Ministry expressed concern at Iran's resumption of its nuclear program this week and urged it to return to negotiations with the EU. "We hope that the Iranian side can do more to help build mutual trust and promote the resumption of talks between Iran and the EU countries," a spokesman said.
Britain hinted at tough sanctions against Iran as it prepared to persuade France and Germany overnight to back an early referral of Tehran to the council.
But Iran's hardline President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, brushed aside growing condemnation and said the country would pursue its course regardless.
In Berlin, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his counterparts from France and Germany are expected to call for the governing board of the IAEA to be convened within two weeks to refer Iran to the council.
The council is likely to request a new report from Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director-general, before taking further action. That will be produced within 30 days, after which the 15-nation council will demand action from Iran and consider sanctions.
European ministers were playing down remarks yesterday from Germany's Deputy Foreign Minister, Gernot Erler, who said that a referral could lead to a dangerous escalation of the situation. Diplomats suggested that the official view to be put in Berlin by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier would be more positive.
Mr Ahmadinejad said Tehran was not intimidated by the international "fuss" over its resumption of nuclear research. "The Iranian nation and Government, with firmness and wisdom, will continue its path in seeking and utilising peaceful nuclear energy," Mr Ahmadinejad said.
He reiterated Iran's rejection of US allegations that it was seeking nuclear weapons.
"Our nation does not need nuclear weapons, nor is interested in having them, and even considers them illegal," the President said yesterday.
AFP, The Times
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17807811%5E2703,00.html[/hide]
[frame]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17807811%255E2703,00.html[/frame]
[hide]Russia backs US escalation on Iran
The Australian
Correspondents in Washington and London
January 13, 2006
THE Bush administration has secured a guarantee from Russia that it will not block US efforts to take Tehran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council, The Washington Post reported yesterday.
The commitment was made in a phone call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice following Iran's resumption of sensitive nuclear work, the newspaper said.
Mr Lavrov told Dr Rice that Russia would abstain, rather than vote against US efforts to move the issue from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Security Council, the report said.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that Dr Rice had spoken with Mr Lavrov and other foreign ministers but did not divulge details.
"It is more likely than ever that we are headed to the Security Council on this question," Mr McCormack said.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney agreed, saying referral to the council would be the probable next step.
But the newspaper said Russia's pledge only concerned a vote inside the IAEA and US officials remain uncertain as to how Moscow, a traditional ally of Iran's, would react if the issue got to the council, where Moscow is one of five countries with veto power. US officials will lobby China for a similar commitment.
Last night China's Foreign Ministry expressed concern at Iran's resumption of its nuclear program this week and urged it to return to negotiations with the EU. "We hope that the Iranian side can do more to help build mutual trust and promote the resumption of talks between Iran and the EU countries," a spokesman said.
Britain hinted at tough sanctions against Iran as it prepared to persuade France and Germany overnight to back an early referral of Tehran to the council.
But Iran's hardline President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, brushed aside growing condemnation and said the country would pursue its course regardless.
In Berlin, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his counterparts from France and Germany are expected to call for the governing board of the IAEA to be convened within two weeks to refer Iran to the council.
The council is likely to request a new report from Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director-general, before taking further action. That will be produced within 30 days, after which the 15-nation council will demand action from Iran and consider sanctions.
European ministers were playing down remarks yesterday from Germany's Deputy Foreign Minister, Gernot Erler, who said that a referral could lead to a dangerous escalation of the situation. Diplomats suggested that the official view to be put in Berlin by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier would be more positive.
Mr Ahmadinejad said Tehran was not intimidated by the international "fuss" over its resumption of nuclear research. "The Iranian nation and Government, with firmness and wisdom, will continue its path in seeking and utilising peaceful nuclear energy," Mr Ahmadinejad said.
He reiterated Iran's rejection of US allegations that it was seeking nuclear weapons.
"Our nation does not need nuclear weapons, nor is interested in having them, and even considers them illegal," the President said yesterday.
AFP, The Times
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17807811%5E2703,00.html[/hide]
Re: Iran Closes Newspaper Bans Women's Publications
<font size="5"><center>China faces dilemma over Iran standoff </font size></center>
By Cindy Sui, Agence France-Presse
Saturday, January 14, 2006
BEIJING: China faces a dilemma over the increasingly tense Iranian nuclear issue, having to weigh relations with the United States against its own energy and political interests, analysts say.
As Washington threatens to propose sanctions at the UN Security Council to punish Iran for refusing to give up its alleged nuclear weapons program, Beijing is playing a careful balancing act.
As one of five permanent members, Beijing wields veto power and can block Washington on the council.
China does not want to alienate Washington while at the same time is very protective over its energy ties with Tehran, experts said.
In addition to its quest for oil to feed its booming economy, China’s history and world view, especially its wariness about US dominance, greatly influences how Beijing will act, they said.
“China largely looks at it from two points of view—American domination of the world of the Middle East region, and of the oil market,” said Joseph Cheng, a political analyst with Hong Kong’s City University.
China imports about 40 percent of the oil it consumes, with that percentage expected to rise as the world’s most populous developing nation undergoes rapid economic expansion.
It is seeking to widen its sources of oil, as it currently gets 70 percent of its imports from the Middle East.
Although the amount it imports from Iran is still relatively small, it wants to increase imports of not only oil but natural gas from Iran, which holds the world’s second-largest oil and gas reserves.
A Chinese delegation was in Tehran last month to revive negotiations on a major oil and gas exports deal potentially worth more than 100 billion dollars.
If sealed, the agreement would mark one of the biggest foreign contracts ever for Iran, which is usually cautious about making significant trade deals with other countries.
Tehran is meanwhile looking for Chinese protection on the Security Council.
“Iran and China have been courting each other in the oil and gas arena,” said Victor Shum, a Singapore-based oil analyst with the US energy consulting firm Purvin and Gertz.
“China is concerned about security of supply and has been active in pursuing investment and tie-ups with producer nations in order to secure their own supply.”
China also has a traditional affinity with Third-World countries trying to counter the interference of powerful nations in their domestic affairs, Cheng said.
It identifies with these countries’ desire to be able to defend itself, having fought for 100 years until 1949 to rid its territory of foreign occupation and create a sovereign state.
At the same time, China sides with Washington in opposing a proliferation of nuclear weapons, fearing an unstable world could hinder its pursuit of its over-riding goals—raising the living standards of its people and maintaining the Communist Party’s hold on power.
Beijing also fears proliferation could give rise to increased terrorism, according to Cheng.
It is wary of ethnic Uighur Muslims, who are trying to create a separate state in its Xinjiang region, getting weapons or other backing from Islamic militants.
On Thursday China criticized Iran’s controversial resumption of its nuclear program and urged it to return to negotiations with the European Union.
But China traditionally opposes sanctions, seeing it as unnecessary confrontation in international disputes.
“It would only make the issue more complicated and difficult to work out,” Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told a news conference in a visit to Tehran in November.
Yet China also generally avoids vetoing US-backed resolutions it disagrees with, so as not to appear in direct confrontation with Washington.
In this case Beijing will likely keep urging both sides to hold more dialogue, to avoid upsetting either side, according to Cheng.
If it gets to a vote on sanctions, the most likely scenario is China will abstain, the safest way out of the dilemma, Cheng said.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/jan/14/yehey/opinion/20060114opi5.html
<font size="5"><center>China faces dilemma over Iran standoff </font size></center>
By Cindy Sui, Agence France-Presse
Saturday, January 14, 2006
BEIJING: China faces a dilemma over the increasingly tense Iranian nuclear issue, having to weigh relations with the United States against its own energy and political interests, analysts say.
As Washington threatens to propose sanctions at the UN Security Council to punish Iran for refusing to give up its alleged nuclear weapons program, Beijing is playing a careful balancing act.
As one of five permanent members, Beijing wields veto power and can block Washington on the council.
China does not want to alienate Washington while at the same time is very protective over its energy ties with Tehran, experts said.
In addition to its quest for oil to feed its booming economy, China’s history and world view, especially its wariness about US dominance, greatly influences how Beijing will act, they said.
“China largely looks at it from two points of view—American domination of the world of the Middle East region, and of the oil market,” said Joseph Cheng, a political analyst with Hong Kong’s City University.
China imports about 40 percent of the oil it consumes, with that percentage expected to rise as the world’s most populous developing nation undergoes rapid economic expansion.
It is seeking to widen its sources of oil, as it currently gets 70 percent of its imports from the Middle East.
Although the amount it imports from Iran is still relatively small, it wants to increase imports of not only oil but natural gas from Iran, which holds the world’s second-largest oil and gas reserves.
A Chinese delegation was in Tehran last month to revive negotiations on a major oil and gas exports deal potentially worth more than 100 billion dollars.
If sealed, the agreement would mark one of the biggest foreign contracts ever for Iran, which is usually cautious about making significant trade deals with other countries.
Tehran is meanwhile looking for Chinese protection on the Security Council.
“Iran and China have been courting each other in the oil and gas arena,” said Victor Shum, a Singapore-based oil analyst with the US energy consulting firm Purvin and Gertz.
“China is concerned about security of supply and has been active in pursuing investment and tie-ups with producer nations in order to secure their own supply.”
China also has a traditional affinity with Third-World countries trying to counter the interference of powerful nations in their domestic affairs, Cheng said.
It identifies with these countries’ desire to be able to defend itself, having fought for 100 years until 1949 to rid its territory of foreign occupation and create a sovereign state.
At the same time, China sides with Washington in opposing a proliferation of nuclear weapons, fearing an unstable world could hinder its pursuit of its over-riding goals—raising the living standards of its people and maintaining the Communist Party’s hold on power.
Beijing also fears proliferation could give rise to increased terrorism, according to Cheng.
It is wary of ethnic Uighur Muslims, who are trying to create a separate state in its Xinjiang region, getting weapons or other backing from Islamic militants.
On Thursday China criticized Iran’s controversial resumption of its nuclear program and urged it to return to negotiations with the European Union.
But China traditionally opposes sanctions, seeing it as unnecessary confrontation in international disputes.
“It would only make the issue more complicated and difficult to work out,” Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told a news conference in a visit to Tehran in November.
Yet China also generally avoids vetoing US-backed resolutions it disagrees with, so as not to appear in direct confrontation with Washington.
In this case Beijing will likely keep urging both sides to hold more dialogue, to avoid upsetting either side, according to Cheng.
If it gets to a vote on sanctions, the most likely scenario is China will abstain, the safest way out of the dilemma, Cheng said.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/jan/14/yehey/opinion/20060114opi5.html
Re: Iran Closes Newspaper Bans Women's Publications
The hidden stakes in the Iran crisis
by Thierry Meyssan
February 4, 2006
Reseau Voltaire (Translated by Colin Buchanan (endempire.blogspot.com)
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
The confrontation between the big powers over Iran continues with antagonisms hidden from view. Since December 2002, the USA has accused Iran of seeking nuclear arms in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
The seizure of Iran by the USA would mean them taking control of both the East bank of the Persian Gulf and the Southern Caspian, including their reserves of oil and gas estimated to be the second largest in the world.
Already the US have military control of part of the Caspian basin and of a corridor enabling them to link this area with the Indian Ocean (Afghanistan and Pakistan). They have also taken control of the key areas of the Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Iraq). At the end of this operation, Washington should have complete control over the world’s main hydrocarbon production and reserves. It will control the world economy without the need to share power.
At the present stage in the conflict, the big powers are divided with regard to US strategy goals. The UK, France and Germany are convinced that Iran has a nuclear arms programme. They base this on briefing by the US intelligence services who have shown them secret documents asserting that Tehran is working on a Green Salt Project aimed at developing a missile system with nuclear warheads. On the other hand, Russia, China and India consider Iran’s programme to be purely civilian in nature. They base themselves on the Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeiny, decreeing that the production, possession and use of nuclear weapons is contrary to Islamic teaching.
Objectively, the NPT’s distinction between between legitimate civilian and prohibited military programmes is no longer pertinent given the techniques now available. Civilian know-how and facilities can easily be adapted to military use. A rigorous reading of NPT would lead to the prohibition of nuclear programmes for all states, whereas a more lax interpretation would open the door to generalized proliferation. Without dealing with this question it is impossible to resolve the Iranian case, and it is precisely this grey area which the US is exploiting in order to lead the way to war.
There is, however, perhaps one means of clarifying the situation . A special method of enriching uranium, not yet completely developed, would, once again, allow a clear distinction between civilian and military usage. Russia is endeavouring to perfect this method and proposes that it be used not only for Iran’s benefit but for that of the international community as a whole. This is expected to be one of the three major proposals which President Putin will put forward at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, this summer.
The feasibility of this project remains to be demonstrated. Russia would produce nuclear fuel on its own territory in factories constructed in partnership with the state in question under the control of the International Atomic Energy Authority(IAEA). Detailed procedures still have to be worked out to guarantee the interests of all the protagonists. If this project were to be fully realized international relations as a whole would be turned completely upside down. Russia, as the guarantor of energy provision throughout the world would eclipse the authority of the USA which today satisfies their own energy needs at the expense of the rest of the world.
Iran has made of its nuclear programme a symbol of its independance with regard to Anglo-Saxon colonialism from which it has suffered so much. Contrary to an idea put about for some time now in the atlanticist press, this ambition is not the reserve of a particular faction within Iran but is shared throughout Iranian society. In addition, if the Islamic Republic has abandoned its dream of expansion dating from the Khomeiny revolution, nowadays, it intends to play a leading role in the rejuvenated non-aligned movement.. It also intends to share its demands regarding nuclear power with other countries and reaffirm the right to a peaceful nuclear programme, not just for itself, but for everyone.
Far from being concerned exclusively with Iran, the present diplomatic game will impact on the international balance of power and the intention of the USA, reaffirmed yesterday in the State of the Union Address, to take on unilateral global leadership.
Throughout 2004 and 2005 the various powers have been making increasingly complicated moves. A European Troika was meant to play the role of honest broker between the USA and Iran; they demanded a halt in Iran’s nuclear programme and then leant decisively towards the American camp. Iran, after accepting a two and a half year moratorium on its nuclear research, resumed them on the 10th January 2006, considering that they had waited long enough as a sign of good will without any serious response form the Europeans. The Russian position had become completely opaque, the foreign minister giving to understand that he shared the point of view of the Europeans until being put in his place by Putin who reaffirmed his commitment to a peaceful solution. Finally, a series of diplomatic missions have enabled Russia, China and Iran to develop a common strategy.
The whole question was given a kick-start when Britain organsied, on 30th January, a « private ministerial dinner » bringing together the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the USA and China.. In the course of this meeting, Jack straw, British foreign minister proposed that the IAEA refer the question to the Security Council, the first step on the way to war. His Russian and Chinese opposite numbers emphasized that such a decision would have no basis in international law. Confident in the viability of their uranium enrichment project, the Russian Federation wished simply to play for time, the time necessary to put together an agreement with Iran i.e. one or two months according to the experts. The dinner was concluded by setting out a timetable which each side presented as a victory: the IAEA Council of Governors will not be able to refer Iran to the UN Security council next week because it lacks the power to do so, but will demand of the UNSC that it be given the powers to do so at a future date.
This compromise allows the Americans and Europeans to maintain the pressure and the Russians and Chinese to gain time. Working out who came out best depends on whether you consider the glass half-full or half-empty.
In practice, assuming that the Security Council gives the Council of Governors the requisite powers, the latter can only put them into effect at their next meeting on 9th March.
The Iranians make play of resenting this horse trading as a betrayal by their friends the Russians. But, it is quite possible that they have obtained a written guarantee from the Russians that they will veto any vote by the Security council authorizing war.
Whatever the case may be, the Iranians are appealing to their partners in the non-aligned movement for help. President Ahmadinejad received a phone call of support from Thabo Mbeki( South Africa, who had produced nuclear during the apartheid era, along with Israel, later renounced them). Indonesia has repeatedly called for peace, whilst Venezuela and Malaysia are soon to receive the Iranian president.
At the same time, Iran is preparing « a world without Israel and the USA ». Tehran is optimistic about putting in place an oil spot market which doesn’t accept dollars. This is already working at an experimental stage. If no nation has officially announced its participation, many are encouraging participation through private companies acting as intermediaries. Now, the dollar is an overvalued currency whose value is maintained essentially by its role as a petro-currency. Such a spot market, once really up and running, would provoke a collapse of the dollar, comparable to hat of 1939, even if its transactions only amounted to a tenth of the world turnover. US power would be undermined by the falling dollar and, in time, Israel would also find itself bankrupt
Washington is then obliged to apply all its force to ensure that the major world powers break with Tehran. Short of war, the US must at least succeed in imposing economic isolation on Iran. Paradoxically, neither option seems possible. The US and Tsahal can hardly bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, since these are maintained by Russian advisers and technicians. Attacking Iran would imply declaring war against Russia. Furthermore, even if strikes were possible, Iran would not neglect to strike back at Israel with the devastating Thor-1 missiles sold to them by the Russians. The Shiites would make life even harder for the occupation forces in Iraq. If the US choose to use an economic blockade of Iran, this could easily be bypassed through Iran’s special relationship with China. Meanwhile, Iran would deny the West part of its oil supply, bringing about a rise in prices of 300% per barrel and a huge economic crisis.
Quite clearly, the outcome of this confrontation depends on the ability of each protagonist to impose his own timetable on events. Meanwhile, the Bush administration stubbornly drives towards a confrontation which it lacks the means to carry through successfully and in which it risks loosing its authority.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Thierry Meyssan, Reseau Voltaire (Translated by Colin Buchanan (endempire.blogspot.com), 2006
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060204&articleId=1885
The hidden stakes in the Iran crisis
by Thierry Meyssan
February 4, 2006
Reseau Voltaire (Translated by Colin Buchanan (endempire.blogspot.com)
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
The confrontation between the big powers over Iran continues with antagonisms hidden from view. Since December 2002, the USA has accused Iran of seeking nuclear arms in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
The seizure of Iran by the USA would mean them taking control of both the East bank of the Persian Gulf and the Southern Caspian, including their reserves of oil and gas estimated to be the second largest in the world.
Already the US have military control of part of the Caspian basin and of a corridor enabling them to link this area with the Indian Ocean (Afghanistan and Pakistan). They have also taken control of the key areas of the Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Iraq). At the end of this operation, Washington should have complete control over the world’s main hydrocarbon production and reserves. It will control the world economy without the need to share power.
At the present stage in the conflict, the big powers are divided with regard to US strategy goals. The UK, France and Germany are convinced that Iran has a nuclear arms programme. They base this on briefing by the US intelligence services who have shown them secret documents asserting that Tehran is working on a Green Salt Project aimed at developing a missile system with nuclear warheads. On the other hand, Russia, China and India consider Iran’s programme to be purely civilian in nature. They base themselves on the Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeiny, decreeing that the production, possession and use of nuclear weapons is contrary to Islamic teaching.
Objectively, the NPT’s distinction between between legitimate civilian and prohibited military programmes is no longer pertinent given the techniques now available. Civilian know-how and facilities can easily be adapted to military use. A rigorous reading of NPT would lead to the prohibition of nuclear programmes for all states, whereas a more lax interpretation would open the door to generalized proliferation. Without dealing with this question it is impossible to resolve the Iranian case, and it is precisely this grey area which the US is exploiting in order to lead the way to war.
There is, however, perhaps one means of clarifying the situation . A special method of enriching uranium, not yet completely developed, would, once again, allow a clear distinction between civilian and military usage. Russia is endeavouring to perfect this method and proposes that it be used not only for Iran’s benefit but for that of the international community as a whole. This is expected to be one of the three major proposals which President Putin will put forward at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, this summer.
The feasibility of this project remains to be demonstrated. Russia would produce nuclear fuel on its own territory in factories constructed in partnership with the state in question under the control of the International Atomic Energy Authority(IAEA). Detailed procedures still have to be worked out to guarantee the interests of all the protagonists. If this project were to be fully realized international relations as a whole would be turned completely upside down. Russia, as the guarantor of energy provision throughout the world would eclipse the authority of the USA which today satisfies their own energy needs at the expense of the rest of the world.
Iran has made of its nuclear programme a symbol of its independance with regard to Anglo-Saxon colonialism from which it has suffered so much. Contrary to an idea put about for some time now in the atlanticist press, this ambition is not the reserve of a particular faction within Iran but is shared throughout Iranian society. In addition, if the Islamic Republic has abandoned its dream of expansion dating from the Khomeiny revolution, nowadays, it intends to play a leading role in the rejuvenated non-aligned movement.. It also intends to share its demands regarding nuclear power with other countries and reaffirm the right to a peaceful nuclear programme, not just for itself, but for everyone.
Far from being concerned exclusively with Iran, the present diplomatic game will impact on the international balance of power and the intention of the USA, reaffirmed yesterday in the State of the Union Address, to take on unilateral global leadership.
Throughout 2004 and 2005 the various powers have been making increasingly complicated moves. A European Troika was meant to play the role of honest broker between the USA and Iran; they demanded a halt in Iran’s nuclear programme and then leant decisively towards the American camp. Iran, after accepting a two and a half year moratorium on its nuclear research, resumed them on the 10th January 2006, considering that they had waited long enough as a sign of good will without any serious response form the Europeans. The Russian position had become completely opaque, the foreign minister giving to understand that he shared the point of view of the Europeans until being put in his place by Putin who reaffirmed his commitment to a peaceful solution. Finally, a series of diplomatic missions have enabled Russia, China and Iran to develop a common strategy.
The whole question was given a kick-start when Britain organsied, on 30th January, a « private ministerial dinner » bringing together the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the USA and China.. In the course of this meeting, Jack straw, British foreign minister proposed that the IAEA refer the question to the Security Council, the first step on the way to war. His Russian and Chinese opposite numbers emphasized that such a decision would have no basis in international law. Confident in the viability of their uranium enrichment project, the Russian Federation wished simply to play for time, the time necessary to put together an agreement with Iran i.e. one or two months according to the experts. The dinner was concluded by setting out a timetable which each side presented as a victory: the IAEA Council of Governors will not be able to refer Iran to the UN Security council next week because it lacks the power to do so, but will demand of the UNSC that it be given the powers to do so at a future date.
This compromise allows the Americans and Europeans to maintain the pressure and the Russians and Chinese to gain time. Working out who came out best depends on whether you consider the glass half-full or half-empty.
In practice, assuming that the Security Council gives the Council of Governors the requisite powers, the latter can only put them into effect at their next meeting on 9th March.
The Iranians make play of resenting this horse trading as a betrayal by their friends the Russians. But, it is quite possible that they have obtained a written guarantee from the Russians that they will veto any vote by the Security council authorizing war.
Whatever the case may be, the Iranians are appealing to their partners in the non-aligned movement for help. President Ahmadinejad received a phone call of support from Thabo Mbeki( South Africa, who had produced nuclear during the apartheid era, along with Israel, later renounced them). Indonesia has repeatedly called for peace, whilst Venezuela and Malaysia are soon to receive the Iranian president.
At the same time, Iran is preparing « a world without Israel and the USA ». Tehran is optimistic about putting in place an oil spot market which doesn’t accept dollars. This is already working at an experimental stage. If no nation has officially announced its participation, many are encouraging participation through private companies acting as intermediaries. Now, the dollar is an overvalued currency whose value is maintained essentially by its role as a petro-currency. Such a spot market, once really up and running, would provoke a collapse of the dollar, comparable to hat of 1939, even if its transactions only amounted to a tenth of the world turnover. US power would be undermined by the falling dollar and, in time, Israel would also find itself bankrupt
Washington is then obliged to apply all its force to ensure that the major world powers break with Tehran. Short of war, the US must at least succeed in imposing economic isolation on Iran. Paradoxically, neither option seems possible. The US and Tsahal can hardly bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, since these are maintained by Russian advisers and technicians. Attacking Iran would imply declaring war against Russia. Furthermore, even if strikes were possible, Iran would not neglect to strike back at Israel with the devastating Thor-1 missiles sold to them by the Russians. The Shiites would make life even harder for the occupation forces in Iraq. If the US choose to use an economic blockade of Iran, this could easily be bypassed through Iran’s special relationship with China. Meanwhile, Iran would deny the West part of its oil supply, bringing about a rise in prices of 300% per barrel and a huge economic crisis.
Quite clearly, the outcome of this confrontation depends on the ability of each protagonist to impose his own timetable on events. Meanwhile, the Bush administration stubbornly drives towards a confrontation which it lacks the means to carry through successfully and in which it risks loosing its authority.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Thierry Meyssan, Reseau Voltaire (Translated by Colin Buchanan (endempire.blogspot.com), 2006
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060204&articleId=1885
Not trying to put words in your word Q, but based on how you phrase the sentence you saying you believe those crazy mullahs will give Osama and the like, nukes?
I can't say for sure, but I’m as sure that Iran will probably give nukes to terrorist as I’m sure GW will invade before he leaves office if Iraq calms down. But based on the current law the Iranians have the right to enrich.
If you look at the "geo-political - my big word for the day" landscape of the Middle East in the last 25 years, you'll probably see why Iran is so nervous. They are surrounded by US soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc china is on top of them hungry and looking to expand, Israel has nuclear weapons, they were branded as one of the axis of evil of which one has already been invaded and now occupied, the US has tried to overthrow their government before, Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, as a matter of fact India did not sign the NPT yet the US is selling them nuclear technology, Pakistan illegally developed nuclear technology and is now GW's best bud in the war on terror. Iran is a signatory to the NPT which gives them the right to enrich uranium and they are being told they can't. I'd be nervous too. See you have to enrich to get electricity in the nuclear process. Everybody is saying Iran does not even have the right to nuclear technology and therefore nuclear electricity. They do indeed have an abundance of oil, yet all the talking heads are quoting published reports saying the planet will run out of oil in 50 years. This is another reason to pursue nuclear technology.
The only thing the Iranians hate more than their own government is our government messing in their business.
<font size="4">
The following was originally posted by <u>donpark1</u> in a
new thread but is moved to this thread on the same
subject. QueEx
____________________________________________</font size>
Information about OUR C.I.A. Check it out...!!
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA Hits/CIA_GreatestHits.html
Our government has Tested weapons on our own military personnell, Blown up our citizens, sponsored terrorist acts against other countries as well as our own. And they are at it again with Iran. We need to get information out to everyone we know and make this government be held accountable.
If you really want to stay up on Politics you can also check out. www.prisonplanet.com or www.infowars.com
Alex Jones is the truth.
`
The following was originally posted by <u>donpark1</u> in a
new thread but is moved to this thread on the same
subject. QueEx
____________________________________________</font size>
Information about OUR C.I.A. Check it out...!!
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA Hits/CIA_GreatestHits.html
Our government has Tested weapons on our own military personnell, Blown up our citizens, sponsored terrorist acts against other countries as well as our own. And they are at it again with Iran. We need to get information out to everyone we know and make this government be held accountable.
If you really want to stay up on Politics you can also check out. www.prisonplanet.com or www.infowars.com
Alex Jones is the truth.
`
This Iranian nukes talk is just talk after the fiasco in Iraq the U.S. won't be invading anybody and that's probably the biggest problem with this modern crusade it's been handled so badly that nobody takes the U.S. seriously anymore. The only way this country can regain any moral authority is bringing the Bush regime up on criminal charges which will never happen and it shouldn't.
tehuti said:
ONE SCENARIO
Do you remember the mention of the "Axis of Evil?" In which Bush claimed Iran is a threat to the U.S.? This, is how he plants the seed of propaganda to later escalate a potentially diplomatic solution/situation into an all out WAR!
According to one expert, Scott Ritter(Ex-U .N. inspector) and other pundits have claimed that a likely scenario will go like this: The US or Israel will attack Iran's nuclear targets, Iran will retaliate by: 1) attacking Israel, and/or 2) trying to take out key oil production areas in the Gulf, and/or 3) Iranians will blitz across the Iraqi border. Upon such retaliation, the US will then drop a nuclear weapon on Iran to halt any further aggression; as such an act did against Japan 61 years ago.
THIS SCENARIO IS BEGINNING OF ANOTHER WAR. EVEN YET, WORSE SCENARIOS, I DON'T CARE TO DWEL ON AT THIS POINT
If this is the extent, more or less, of Washington's war gaming, we're in trouble, because it assumes that Russia and China, two juggernauts that are heavily invested in Iran's energy and security sectors, will not respond viscerally to prevent Iran's oil and gas from being taken from them by the US, UK and Israel. China could also use a growing quagmire with Iran as an alleyway chance to finally 'annex' Taiwan once and for all (Russia and China were conducting joint military exercises last year very close to Taiwan).
Other nations, sensing a growing nuclear catastrophe, could dump the US dollar altogether as the Federal Reserve and Treasury print currency by the metric tonnes out of thin air to feed the frenzy (which may already be in the works, as the Fed will cease revealing the M3 aggregate money figure in, of all months, March 2006.). Oil would surpass $200/barrel in the US, gold would break $1000/troy ounce and martial law would be declared in multiple nations.
IN THIS UNFORTUNATE SCENARIO, THE DOLLAR, FETTI, PAPER, MOOLA, GREEN, BENJAMINS, ETC...WOULD BE WORTHLESS!
All because our government refuses to renegotiate the terms under which energy commodities are priced and traded around the world, despite the clear urgency for monetary and fiscal reform.
One has to ask oneself, in an apt yet still eerie paraphrase of Bud Fox's poignant question posed to Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street":
How many wars will be enough?
Copyright - Ramin Davoodi - ramid@myway.com
ALSO, LISTEN HERE...http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070206rivero.mp3
Last edited:
Iran oil supply is a more powerful weapon than any nuke they may have or may not have. If Iran stopped exporting oil prices in China and Russia would skyrocket hurting their economies badly. Americas oil prices would also skyrocket but not as dramatically. Russia and China cannot and will not allow that to happen. Russia and china have more of an interest in Iranian oil than the U.S. has in Iranian nukes. I really don't think either country would allow an American run Iran. America would have too much power of the energy supply. America simply cannot invade Iran unilaterally like they basically did with Iraq.
I thought the Russians were net oil exporters ? Wouldn't rising prices benefit an exporter ?Temujin said:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html
`
VegasGuy said:
Iran, even though extreme in most chases is doing what anyone would be doing if they were in there situation. The might makes right philosophy of our administration is hard core, Iran is trying to stall to get nukes b/c they realize that the US or anyone else wouldnt attack them if they had them. We overthrowed there democratic govt under Mossadeq, b/c they didnt want Great Britainn to control there oil. So the people embrace extrem views of Islam, anti west shit b/c of what they been through. Then they see Afghanistan & Iraq get bombed so they are scared, and want to get nukes to prevent that shit from happening to them...This is for certain if they get nukes the power in the middle east will shift....jews dont want them b/c Iran them b/c of what they did to the Palestinians. But then again non of those Arab countries like the Israel. In America the media runs shit, people believe what they see on the news as completely true, without question---Kinda of like the movie "V for Vendetta"
P.S.---here a news trivia on Iran---they were the only country in the middle east to hold a candle light visual after 9-11 to mourn the victims....thats gets no press though....maybe its b/c they have the second largest natural gas reserve in the world.....
P.S.---here a news trivia on Iran---they were the only country in the middle east to hold a candle light visual after 9-11 to mourn the victims....thats gets no press though....maybe its b/c they have the second largest natural gas reserve in the world.....
<font size="5"><center>British military chiefs believe
a US-led strike against Iran is inevitable </font size></center>
DEBKAfile
April 2, 2006, 6:32 AM (GMT+02:00)
The paper reports the prospect will be aired at a secret high-level UK defense ministry meeting Monday.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report: British generals will examine Iran’s successful test of a Fajr-3 multiple warhead missile that can reach Israel, that was carried out undetected by US or Israel radar Friday, March 31. It was launched on the first day of a large-scale Iranian exercise in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman.
Those sources add that the Israeli Arrow anti-missile system has no answer for multiple warhead ballistic missiles.
The US hopes for a multinational military operation to destroy Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear bomb - if Tehran fail to comply with the UN security council demand to freeze uranium enrichment. But British defense chiefs believe that failing international support, the Bush administration would go it alone or with Israel’s assistance.
DEBKAfile adds: Last month, former Israel chief of staff Moshe Yaalon estimated that a strike of this kind would be phased, suggesting that each phase would be undertaken by a different armed force.
In Blackburn, northwest England, Saturday, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said all negotiating options including the use of force remained open for resolving the Iran crisis. Last month, foreign secretary Jack Straw took the opposite stance saying a military attack was inconceivable.
According to the Sunday Telegraph, British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants rather than a land assault - tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf, followed by B2 stealth bombers equipped with 8 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs flying from Diego Garcia, the RAF base in Gloucestershire in the UK and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.
At least eight nuclear sites are known within Iran but there are many more secret ones.
The London paper reports Washington fears an Iranian nuclear weapon could be used against Israel or US forces in the region as well as destabilizing the Middle East with Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia opting for nuclear weapons programs.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=2203
a US-led strike against Iran is inevitable </font size></center>
DEBKAfile
April 2, 2006, 6:32 AM (GMT+02:00)
The paper reports the prospect will be aired at a secret high-level UK defense ministry meeting Monday.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report: British generals will examine Iran’s successful test of a Fajr-3 multiple warhead missile that can reach Israel, that was carried out undetected by US or Israel radar Friday, March 31. It was launched on the first day of a large-scale Iranian exercise in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman.
Those sources add that the Israeli Arrow anti-missile system has no answer for multiple warhead ballistic missiles.
The US hopes for a multinational military operation to destroy Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear bomb - if Tehran fail to comply with the UN security council demand to freeze uranium enrichment. But British defense chiefs believe that failing international support, the Bush administration would go it alone or with Israel’s assistance.
DEBKAfile adds: Last month, former Israel chief of staff Moshe Yaalon estimated that a strike of this kind would be phased, suggesting that each phase would be undertaken by a different armed force.
In Blackburn, northwest England, Saturday, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said all negotiating options including the use of force remained open for resolving the Iran crisis. Last month, foreign secretary Jack Straw took the opposite stance saying a military attack was inconceivable.
According to the Sunday Telegraph, British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants rather than a land assault - tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf, followed by B2 stealth bombers equipped with 8 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs flying from Diego Garcia, the RAF base in Gloucestershire in the UK and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.
At least eight nuclear sites are known within Iran but there are many more secret ones.
The London paper reports Washington fears an Iranian nuclear weapon could be used against Israel or US forces in the region as well as destabilizing the Middle East with Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia opting for nuclear weapons programs.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=2203
Last edited:
Similar threads
