Iranian Community Against War -ICAW

Our Mission Statement

2010-12-31T18:29:00.000-08:00

U.S. HANDS OFF IRAN!
NO WAR ON IRAN!
NO SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN!

On October 25th 2008, the US escalated its drive for war and invasion against the people of Iran with the announcement of new sanctions attacking the Iranian Defence Ministry, Revolutionary Guards, and major Iranian banks. The US state and treasury departments also labeled the Revolutionary Guard Corps "proliferators of weapons of mass destruction" and "a supporter of terrorism".
Since October 2006, the US has been carrying out a massive military buildup in the Persian Gulf. The new sanctions and condemnation by the US government are a continuation of this build up through political and economic attack. The US government has taken this campaign even further with designating an internal and official army of another country, Iran, as a ‘terrorist’ force.
Already, major banks in several European countries have joined the US attempt to hold Iranian people hostage by withdrawing from any financial transactions and business with the Iranian banks. The sanctions seek to cripple the Iranian economy, armed forces and defences in order to weaken the country in preparation for the attack against Iran that the US desires. All evidence indicates that the US is marching to war for broad military aggression against the people of Iran.
This war drive is part of a bloodthirsty effort to consolidate this new era of war and occupation and to re-establish US hegemony over the Middle East. The US has been trying to recover from the huge blow they suffered during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when their puppet regime of the Shah was ousted by the Iranian people. Any foreign attack against Iran will bring a huge loss of life, destruction and terror for the people of Iran –the same disaster and chaos brought to Afghanistan and Iraq- and must be opposed by all peace-loving people around the world! The self-determination of the Iranian people must be defended under any circumstance.
We are Iranians in Vancouver, Canada, who oppose war, occupation and sanctions by imperialist countries in this new era of war and occupation. Our goal is to educate, organize and mobilize the public, particularly the Iranian community outside of Iran, on the issues of war, occupation and sanctions. As well, we are currently campaigning on the ever increasing United States sanctions and military aggression against the people of Iran.

>> IRAN & the MIDDLE EAST

2010-12-31T01:19:00.000-08:00

* CLICK PICTURES TO SEE THEM BIGGER *

IRAN

US flags indicate US army presence

>>> VANCOUVER: INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION ~ NO WAR ON IRAN!

2010-07-18T03:30:00.000-07:00

NO WAR ON IRAN!
NO SANCTIONS ON IRAN!
NO INTERVENTION!
NO ASSASSINATIONS!

SATURDAY
February 4, 2012
3pm
U.S. Consulate
1075 W. Pender St. (@ Thurlow)
Vancouver, BC

Mobilization Against War & Occupation (MAWO) & Iranian CommunityAgainst War (ICAW)

INTERNATIONAL DAYOF ACTION ~ PICKET RALLY: NO WAR ON IRAN!

============================================================

The imperialistwar drive led by the US government is escalating against Iran. Iran is facingsanctions imposed by the EU, US, UN and Canada, as well as imperialist covertoperations including assassinations and sabotage. Manipulation and the negativepropaganda war against Iran are an indication of the seriousness of imminentimperialist military attack.

MobilizationAgainst War & Occupation (MAWO) has joined and endorsed the February 4th call to action against war on Iran byU.S. social justice and antiwar organizations. Join MAWO in Vancouver alongwith 48 cities in Canada, across the US and around the world to demand:

>> No War onIran!

>> NoSanctions on Iran!

>> NoIntervention and No Assassinations!

For poster:

http://www.mawovancouver.org/materials/posters/120204-IranRally.pdf

To join Facebook event:

http://www.facebook.com/events/333677199998405/?context=create

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Co-organized by:

MAWO ~ Mobilization Against War &Occupation &
ICAW ~ Iranian Community Against War
http://www.mawovancouver.org
info@mawovancouver.org
P 604.322.1764 | F 604.322.1763

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Endorsers include (list is growing):

World Can’t Wait * United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) * InternationalAction Center (IAC) * SI! Solidarity with Iran * Refugee Apostolic CatholicChurch * Workers World Party * CODEPINK Women for Peace * American IranianFriendship Committee * ANSWER Coalition * Antiwar.com * Peace of the Action *ComeHomeAmerica.us * St. Pete for Peace * WAMM, Women Against Military Madness* Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality-Virginia * WESPAC Foundation *Minnesota Peace Action Coalition * Twin Cities Peace Campaign * Bail Out ThePeople Movement (BOPM) * We Won’t Fly * Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS)* Granny Peace Brigade * Veterans for Peace – NYC Chapter 034 * Waco Friends ofPeace * Malcolm X Center for Self Determination * Mobilization Against War andOccupation (MAWO) * David Swanson, Author of When the World Outlawed War * Phil Wilayto, Author of In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S.Peace Delegation’s Journey through the Islamic Republic * Ramsey Clark,Former US Attorney General, awarded UN Human Rights Award * Cindy Sheehan,National Co-ordinator of Peace of the Action * Ray McGovern, Veterans for Peace* Karla Hansen, Producer/Director “Silent Screams” * George Phillies, Editorfor Liberty for America * Larry Everest, correspondent for Revolution Newspaper, author of Oil,Power & Empire: Iraq and the US Global Agenda

>>> FEB 4, INATERNATIONAL ACTION: NO WAR ON IRAN!

2010-07-12T02:13:00.000-07:00

In 48 Cities -

FEB 4, 2012 MASS ACTIONSDemanding:

NO War! NO Sanctions! NO Intervention!NO Assassinations on IRAN

IN NYC, NY 1pm North end of TimesSquare - Duffy Square. March to the US & Israelimissions to UN.

List your activity HERE View Listof Activities HERE

(Alphabetical order by State)

1. Phoenix, AZ, 2pm atCesar Chavez Plaza, 200 W Washington.

2. Tucson, AZ 6pm atUnitarian Universalist Church, 4831 E. 22 St.

3. Los Angeles, CA 2pm at Westwood Fed Building, next to UCLAcampus.

4. Los Angeles, CANoon at Wilshire & Western Metro Stop.

5. San Francisco, CA,Noon at Powell & Market, BART Plaza

6. Truckee, CA Noon,at Donner Pass Rd/ Highway 89.

7. New Haven, CT11:00am at New Haven Green, 141 Church St

8. Tampa, FL, NoonMarch on McDill Air Force Base-CentComm, Rally at GandyBivd. & Dale Mabry Highway

9. Atlanta, GA 4:30 -5:30pm at CNN Center, Marietta & Centennial OlympicPark.

10. Honolulu, HI 7pmin Heart of Waikiki, Kalakaua Ave & SeasideAve

11. Des Moines, IA 6pmat Nollen Plaza, Des Moines Civic Center, 221 WalnutSt

12. Chicago, IL Noon atFederal Plaza

13. Champaign-Urbana,IL 2pm at Neil and Main St.

14. Boston, MA 1pm atTremont & Park St, March to Israeli consulate &Copley Square

15. Detroit MI 2pm atGrand Circus Park – Woodward Ave at Adams.

16. Kochville MI 12noon at Bay Rd & Tittabawassee Rd

17. Minneapolis, MN 3pm at 3^rd St & Cedar Avenue South.

18. Albany NY Noon atWolf Road & Central Ave, March 1pm to mall recruitingstation.

19. Buffalo, NY 3pm atCity Hall Square, then marching.

20. NYC, NY 1pm atNorth end of Times Square - Duffy Square. March to theUS & Israeli missions to UN.

21. Rochester, NY 11amat The Public Market, 280 North UnionStreet

22. Saratoga, NY Noonat Broadway by Post Office, Weekly Vigil Site.

23. Columbus, OH6:30pm at Goodale St. & N. High St.

24. Defiance, OH Noonat Defiance County Courthouse, 221 ClintonStreet

25. Tulsa, OK Noon atSouthwest Corner of 41st and Yale Ave,

26. Harrisburg, PA Noonat State Capitol Steps, 3^rd Street Side at North &Walnut

27. Philadelphia PANoon at 5^th & Market, IndependenceHall.

28. Rock Hill,SC 7pm at Byrnes Auditorium at WinthropUniversity, 701 Oakland Ave.

29. Salt Lake City, UT3pm at Downtown Federal Building, 125 S. StateSt

30. Blacksburg VA 2 PM,Main Post Office.

31. Norfolk, VA 1pm atCity Hall Ave at Saint Paul Blvd.

32. Richmond VA, Noonat Federal Building.

33. Seattle, WA 1:30 atWestlake Center, March to Military processingcenter.

34. Milwaukee, WI Noon at East Capitol Dr.Bridge just east of Capitol Ave & HumboldBlvd.

35. Green Bay, WI Noonat Lambeau Field.

36. Washington DC Noonat Lafayette Square, White House

Feb 02 NO War on Iran Actions

1. Bloomington, IL5:30pm at Center for the Performing Arts 600 EastStreet

2. Oklahoma City, OK,4:30pm at Gold Dome corner, 1112 Northwest 23rdStreet

FEB 3 NO War on Iran Actions

1. Baltimore, MD. 5pmMcKelvin Sq, Pratt & Light Street

2. Raleigh, NC 4:30pmFederal Building, 310 New Bern Ave

3. Nashville TN 2pm,Nashville Legislative Plaza, 6^th Ave & Deaderick St.

Other Countriesorganizing for NO War on Iran actions on Feb4:

Canada-

1. Calgary, AB11am,Consulate General of USA, 615 Macleod Trail S.E.,10th Floor

2. Lethbridge,AB 2pm, City Hall, 910 4th Ave. South

3. Vancouver,BC:Picket and rally in front of US consulate, downtown,3-6pm

Bangaldesh capital Dacca rally andmarch;

India message of actions in several cities includingCalcutta.

Ireland at Shannon Air Base, forward base forNATO,

Norway, Oslo, Rally initiated by Iranians in Diaspora,Supported by Peace Initative Norway, Party Red &others.

Group in Iran called House of Latin America, is contactinggroups internationally and urging activity in severalcountries.

>>> FEBRUARY 4, 2012 INTERNATIONAL ACTION: STOP WAR ON IRAN

2010-07-10T02:23:00.000-07:00

Feb. 4 anti-war actions called to stop imperialist threats to Iran

By John Catalinotto

Jan 21, 2012

A broad spectrum of U.S.-based anti-imperialist and anti-war organizationsagreed on a Jan. 17 conference call to hold coordinated protests across thecountry on Saturday, Feb. 4. The demands will be: “No war, no sanctions,no intervention, no assassinations against Iran.”
The ad-hoc group that took part in the call decided that although there areonly two weeks to organize, it will invite anti-war forces around the world tojoin in, if possible, so that this emergency action could develop into a globalday of action.
All agreed on the need to stop U.S. imperialism and/or Israel from launchinga military attack on Iran. There was also a consensus that the new sanctionsPresident Barack Obama signed into law on Dec. 31 — with the goal ofbreaking the Iranian central bank — were themselves an act of war aimedat the Iranian people. The political activists on the call raised the danger ofa wider war should fighting break out in or around Iran.
While the organizations involved had varied assessments of the Iraniangovernment, they all saw any intervention from U.S. imperialism in theSouthwest Asian country as a threat to the entire region and to peace. Some ofthe people on the call who are originally from Iran and who were in touch withfamily and friends there conveyed the Iranian people’s anger at therecent assassination of a young scientist.
There was agreement to make “no assassinations” one of thedemands to show solidarity with the Iranian population as well as to condemnthe U.S. and its allies for criminal activities against Iran and itspeople.
As of Jan. 19, the organizations that called the actions or endorsed laterincluded the United National Antiwar Coalition, the International ActionCenter, SI! Solidarity with Iran, Refugee Apostolic Catholic Church, WorkersWorld Party, World Can’t Wait, American Iranian Friendship Committee,Answer Coalition, Antiwar.com, Peace of the Action, ComeHomeAmerica.us, St.Pete for Peace, Women Against Military Madness, Defenders for Freedom, Justice& Equality-Virginia, WESPAC Foundation, Peace Action Maine, Occupy MyrtleBeach, Minnesota Peace Action Coalition, Twin Cities Peace Campaign and BailOut the People Movement.
Individual endorsers include authors David Swanson, “When the WorldOutlawed War,” and Phil Wilayto, “In Defense of Iran: Notes from aU.S. Peace Delegation’s Journey through the Islamic Republic”; andU.N. Human Rights Award winner Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorneygeneral.
The list is expected to grow steadily as word spreads. Right now people canfollow developments on the Facebook link: No War On Iran: National Day ofAction Feb 4,
www.facebook.com/events/214341975322807/.

There will also be updates, giving times and places of demonstrations, atthe
International Action Center website: www.iacenter.org.

>>> Why OWS Should Lead the "No Iran War!" Resistance

2010-06-29T03:23:00.000-07:00

Why OWS Should Lead the "No Iran War!" Resistance

by Joe Scarry (source: Joe Scarry Blog)

Saturday, January 28, 2012

A national call went out just a week ago for a National Day of Action to resist U.S. war against Iran. Will the Occupy movement be the leading voice saying "No Iran War!" ?

COURAGE TO THINK DIFFERENT
Some people might argue that the problem of preventing the newest U.S. war is not squarely within the area of concern of Occupy. I would argue that, in fact, there is no one better-positioned to take up this resistance than the biggest group of people in the U.S. who have gotten first-hand experience of U.S. government threats and repression.
It is not a coincidence that legislation that aimed at both Iran and at the Occupy movement was signed into law on New Year's Eve. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides sanctions on Iran, and it also has sweeping provisions for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens that amount to "Guantanamo for EVERYONE!" and are clearly aimed at the Occupy movement (among others).
The Occupy movement is not the first group within the U.S. to find itself in the federal government's cross-hairs -- but it's quite clearly the one that's there right now. It takes courage to stand up to that, and that's why every day more and more people are signing on to the call to support OWS and help it resist its suppression.
It also takes courage to talk sense when a large part of the U.S. population has been convinced that another country is full of "bad" people, and is "asking for" a confrontation with the United States. This situation needs mass courage of the kind that few but OWS today possess.

COURAGE TO THINK DIFFERENT
OWS is a movement that is about ideas and debate and analysis. There is no problem as urgently in need of ideas and debate and analysis in American life today, as the threatened war with Iran. Consider some of the issues I raised in early December in my #NoIranWar blog post:
(1) "WMD?" Haven't we see this movie before?
(2) Where does the real threat of nuclear weapons lie?
(3) What is the role of oil in this conflict?
(4) What is the role of the U.S. military enterprise in the Mideast in this conflict?
(5) How do we evaluate the role of Israel in this conflict?
(6) Are we proceeding from a deeply flawed understanding of the Iranian people?
(7) What role does history play in this conflict?
OWS should lead the "No Iran War!" resistance because OWS is prepared to tackle the range of ideas that the current threat of war against Iran poses.
COURAGE TO THINK DIFFERENT
To me, the most important reason that the Occupy movement must take a leadership role in pushing back against the current demonization of Iran is that the idea of accepting people -- even those who look different from oneself -- is so central to the entire Occupy movement.
Over the course of many teach-ins that I have attended at Occupy Chicago, and many conversations with people there, I have come to recognize the power of the idea that we are NOT isolated knots of people who have to be at odds with each other. We have a common humanity, and that's what allows us to have a movement together.

At Occupy Chicago, we've talked about the way the prison industrial complex lures people into thinking that there is an isolated group of people called "prisoners" who are "different" ... we will never be able to understand each other, and so I should just think and behave as if they don't count. We've talked about how people get recruited into the military, and the rest of the society writes them off ("we will never be able to understand each other, and so I should just think and behave as if they don't count . . . "). We've talked about people on every part of the sexual orientation and gender spectrum -- how many times are people written off on these grounds ("we will never be able to understand each other, and so I should just think and behave as if they don't count . . . ")? Pretty soon, I and other people at these events started to realize that people aren't really that different from each other; or, at least, 99% of them aren't, anyway . . . .
If the Occupy movement has taught me one thing, it is that every time I hear some person or group of people being described as "different," I should stop and think. And think again.
Would it really be possible for U.S. leaders to be talking about war with Iran if people here stopped to think about how different people there aren't?
* * * * *
At this writing, there are nearly two dozen "No Iran War!" rallies planned for February 4, and more are being announced every day. Will you be there?

>>> IDEAS TO ORGANIZE ACTION AGAINST WAR ON IRAN IN UK!

2010-06-28T03:12:00.000-07:00

What You Can Do to Stop a Catastrophic War against Iran

(source: CASMII)

Saturday, January 28, 2012

The US, France and UK prodded by Israel are determined to replay their criminal and illegal invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change in Iran this time under the false pretext of the non-existent nuclear weapons programme in the country. The western sanctions and the oil embargo against Iran are an act of war that will lead to a military conflict with catastrophic consequences for the people of Iran, the Middle East and the whole world.

Both the US and Israel’s intelligence agencies and the defense ministers of both countries have confirmed in the past month that there is no indication of a military dimension, nor a decision to develop a nuclear weoponisation programme in Iran. The IAEA Chief I, Yukiya Amano, admitted to German Parliamentarians this week that there was not any credible evidence that Iran’s civilian programme has a military dimension. Despite these admissions, the war drums are beating to the chorus of hawks and their mouthpieces in the media.

We need to act now to avert this lose-lose western strategy and promote the win-win strategy of negotiating in good faith with Iran, without the pre-condition for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment for civilian use, which is its inalienable right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Here is an Action Plan for you to help to defeat the western belligerent lose-lose strategy and promote the peaceful win-win strategy; the aim is to raise awareness and mobilise the public, and bring a motion against sanctions and war on Iran in the House of Commons to defeat the current hawkish stance of the government. A similar action programme with respect to local anti-war organisations should be adopted in the US, France and Germany.

ACTION PLAN TO STOP A CATASTROPHIC WAR ON IRAN

1. Please provide your contact details on the website for CASMII and Stop the War Coalition (STWC).

2. For the full facts of the Iran-West standoff, you can

· study the document:

Key Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
on CASMII’s website www.campaigniran.org.

· read CASMII’s website for the latest developments every day.

3. You can organise local meetings with support from CASMII and STWC to raise awareness and call for action against the impending war.

4. You can propose resolutions at your student union, trade union and other organisations to oppose the war drive and promote the win-win strategy against it.

5. You can write letters to newspapers, local and national MPs and politicians, including David Cameron and Nick Clegg, to challenge the anti Iran lies and distortions, question their evidence and hold them accountable.

6. You can organise delegations with your leading figures to the 10 Downing Street and demand an end to sanctions and the war drive on Iran.

7. You can book an appointment to go and see and lobby your MP to raise the issue at the House of Commons and support a motion to halt the sanctions, the war preparations and the covert war against Iran as publicly declared by Sir John Sawyers the head of MI6 in 2010.

CASMII is an independent campaign organisation with the purpose of opposing sanctions, foreign state interference and military intervention in Iran. See www.campaigniran.org for more information.

>>> CASMII STATMENT ON SANCTIONS & MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN

2010-06-26T03:01:00.000-07:00

Key Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran

(source: CASMII)

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Introduction
The current US stand-off against Iran, like the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, was instigated by the neoconservatives of the Bush Administration based on their doctrine of “maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests” [1]. In the case of Saddam’s regime, its fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and its alleged links to Al-Qaida were used in the US propaganda war to first impose UN sanctions and eventually invade Iraq for a regime change. We now have a déjà vu situation in which the US and its allies, prodded by Israel, demonize Iran as a threat to world security and accuse it of having a nuclear weaponisation programme. The same Israeli lobby and “hawks” who pushed for the invasion of Iraq under the Neo-Conservative Bush administration, are now succeeding in browbeating Obama administration on to the path of most crushing sanctions and military attack on Iran.

As in the case of Iraq, the UN Security Council Resolutions and sanctions against Iran, extricated through massive US pressure, are meant to provide a veneer of legitimacy for such an attack. The biased and politicized November 2011 report of the International Atomic Energy Agency - whose decisions are manipulated by political and economic pressures from the US and its allies in the agency, and its current Head, Yokio Amano, has been exposed as a staunch ally of the US - serves the same purpose. As in the case of Iraq, the real aim is a regime change in Iran for setting up a US puppet government in this oil and gas rich country in the key strategic Persian Gulf region. This is what also happened in the 1953 US-British coup against the nationalist government of Dr Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, which followed western sanctions and an oil embargo against the country. No lie and distortion of the truth and no act of manipulation, coercion and aggression is spared by Israel, the US and their allies to achieve their goals.

Contrary to the myth propagated through the western media, it is the US and its European allies which are defying the international community by their rejection of negotiation with Iran without pre-conditions. Their absence of good faith is evidenced by the demand that Iran concedes the main point of negotiations, namely, suspension of enrichment of uranium - which is Iran’s legitimate right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty - before the negotiations even begin.

The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) calls for immediate and direct negotiations between the US and Iran without any pre-conditions.

Here, we briefly examine and debunk some key accusations against Iran and outline the reasons for opposing sanctions and military intervention against Iran. (The PDF file of this document is attached below.)

IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME: FACTS AND LIES

1. Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran was among the first of 190 countries to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, in order to "prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology”, and “to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty represents “the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States". [1] As a party to the NPT, Iran has an “inalienable right” [2] to develop a civilian nuclear technology and to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran is also entitled to full technical assistance from other NPT members. However, Western pressure has blocked Iran’s access to such cooperation, forcing the country to strive for self-reliance in nuclear technology. [3]

2. There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran. The US now nominally recognizes Iran's legal right under the NPT to develop nuclear technology for civilian use, but charges that Iran's nuclear programme is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no proof to back up this charge. [1] Thousands of man-hours of United Nations inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the most intensive and intrusive ever undertaken in its history, have not produced one shred of evidence of nuclear weapons planning in Iran. [2] [3] Every IAEA report on Iran to date, including the hyped-up report of 8 November 2011, has confirmed that the "Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran" [4] to any weaponisation programme, which is the only mandate of the Agency with respect to its Safeguard Agreements with Iran.

Western discourse against Iran’s nuclear programme is simply a pretext, like the WMD in Iraq which never existed, to pressure and isolate Iran, to cripple its economy to manufacture mass discontent, and to divide Iranians as a prelude to a regime change and installation of a US puppet government.

Since 2004, the US and its allies have singled out Iran and demand that Iran prove it is not hiding a nuclear weapons programme now or intent on developing one in the future [5]. To satisfy this demand is a logical impossibility, like when the U.S demanded that Iraq prove it was not making weapons of mass destruction. In the case of Iraq, in September 2002, after 11 years of the most comprehensive search by UN inspectors, Iraqi Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, read a statement from Saddam Hussein before the UN Secretariat: “Our country is ready to receive any scientific experts, accompanied by politicians you choose to represent any one of your countries, to tell us which places and scientific and industrial installations they would wish to see.” [New York Times, 9/20/2002] [6]. Still, Iraq was charged with fabricated evidence that it had purchased "yellow cake" uranium powder from Niger and that it had links with Al-Qaeda. No evidence to the contrary by analysts and UN inspectors and nothing that Iraq said or did could stop the 2003 catastrophic invasion of that country – after which the US had to admit the charges were false. [7]

In July 2007, IAEA and Iran agreed on a Work Plan with defined modalities and timetable to clarify all issues of concerns in relation to Iran’s nuclear programme. On 27th August 2007, IAEA announced that “The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use”. The agreement also cleared Iran’s plutonium experiments, which the Cheney Camp had accused of being evidence of Iran’s weaponisation programme [8]. Dr Mohammad El-Baradei, the IAEA Ex-Director General, said on 7th September 2007, “For the last few years we have been told by the Security Council, by the board, we have to clarify the outstanding issues in Iran because these outstanding issues are the ones that have led to the lack of confidence, the crisis”, “We have not come to see any undeclared activities or weaponisation of their programme” [9].

Two years earlier, in June 2005, Bruno Pellaud, former IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards, asked by Swissinfo if Iran was intent on building a nuclear bomb. He replied: "My impression is not. My view is based on the fact that Iran took a major gamble in December 2003 by allowing a much more intrusive capability to the IAEA. If Iran had had a military programme they would not have allowed the IAEA to come under this Additional Protocol. They did not have to."

The satisfactory conclusion of the IAEA-Iran Work Plan on all of the nine “outstanding issues” in September 2007, would have warranted the return of Iran’s nuclear file from the Security Council to the jurisdiction of the IAEA. However, the Agency report of 22 February 2008 [10], raised the question of, what it termed as, “alleged studies”, based on documents received from Western intelligence agencies purporting to show studies of nuclear weapon systems. The report said however that “the agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard” [11]. The authenticity of many of these documents, which based on the US claim, were obtained from a “laptop” stolen from Iran in 2004, has been challenged and disregarded as “fabricated”, [12] [13] even by officials of the IAEA, analysts and some Western intelligence agencies, ever since the supposed “intelligence” was first raised in 2004. New York Times, at the time (13.11.2005) [14] quoted the assessment of intelligence sources, that “any sophisticated intelligence service could fabricate such a laptop”.

It was the successful resolution of the IAEA-Iran Work Plan that prompted the US and Israel to resurrect the alleged “stolen laptop” as evidence of weaponisation studies.

The latest IAEA report of 8 November 2011 [15], contrary to the Western media’s frenzied chorus about the evidence of “nuclear weapons research” (Jullian Borger, Guardian 07/11/2011) [16] [17], once again confirmed the non-diversion of all declared material to nuclear weaponisation. This is the only mandate of the Agency in relation to the Safeguard Agreements with Iran. The report, however, expressed concern, for the first time, under the new head of the Agency, Yukiya Amano - exposed in Wiki-leaks documents [18] as a staunch ally of the US against Iran - that Iran may have experimented with military research before 2004 and that these may have continued since.

These allegations, however, are not new but are based on the old discredited “documents” from the “alleged studies” obtained from the alleged “stolen laptop” referred to above. There is only one new alleged evidence in the report. There is a reference to a “former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist” who allegedly assisted Iran in building the cylindrical explosion chamber. But was subsequently revealed that “Vyacheslav Danilenko” was not a nuclear scientist at all but a Ukrainian world specialist in nano-diamonds who had assisted Iran with work on nanotechnology. Furthremore, David Kelly, who was the UNSC Chief Nuclear Inspector in Iraq, rejects this claim as “highly misleading”. Kelly, a nuclear engineer, states that the cylindrical chamber referred to by the IAEA “could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design, contrary to the IAEA claim”. (Gareth Porter, Counterpunch 21.11.11). [19]

3. Iran's need for nuclear Energy and Technology is real. Western charges against Iran that the oil rich country does not need nuclear power is hypocritical and dishonest. With Iran’s population of 70 million, and growing, and its oil resources fast depleting, Iran may be a net importer of oil in just over a decade from now. Nuclear energy is a realistic solution for electricity generation in the country, for the foreseeable future. Iran’s population has more than doubled in three decades and its per capita energy consumption has grown even faster. Demand has outpaced production so much that electricity is rationed with rotating scheduled cuts in Tehran during peak periods of summer heat, and in July of 2010, most public sector agencies in 20 of Iran’s 30 provinces shut down intermittently for conservation. So the country needs to diversify its energy sources to keep up with demand and still have enough oil and gas for export and for future generations. This need was recognized years before the 1979 Revolution, when Iran planned multiple nuclear power stations with support from all US Administrations at the time. [1]

In fact, a report (Katzman, K. 2009) [2] by US Congressional Research Service refers to the analysis by "the National Academy of Sciences challenging the US view that Iran is petroleum rich and therefore has no need for a nuclear power programme”. “According to the analysis, the relative lack of investment is causing a decline in Iranian oil exports to the point where Iran might have negligible exports of oil by 2015”. The analysis (Stern, R. 2001) by the US National Academy of Sciences stated, as far back as 2001, that "The regime's dependence on export revenue suggests that it could need nuclear power as badly as it claims. Recent analyses by former National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) officials project that oil exports could go to zero within 12-19 years. It therefore seems possible that Iran's claim to need nuclear power might be genuine ..." [3].

Iran's dependency on Western-dominated global markets, as well as the low refining capacity due to sanctions, and the need for importation of petroleum products, make Iran vulnerable to foreign economic warfare. With global oil derivatives, such as gasoline and petrochemical items shrinking in availability and increasing in price, Iran truly needs to reduce its dependency on imports. Iran has the largest fleet of oil tankers in the Middle East but these ships are easy targets for attack or sabotage. [4] [5] It is, therefore, in Iran’s legitimate security interests to develop alternatives to oil for domestic consumption.

Iran's need for nuclear technology is not limited to economic and energy security aspects. The country also needs nuclear fuel for its medical purposes. Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) which produces isotopes for treatment of more than 800,000 cancer patients and other complicated diseases, ran out of fuel in 2010. More has to be produced by Iran itself, because not only the half-life of the radioisotopes used by the TRR, is too short to be imported from other countries, but also because the US and its allies have a history of blocking Iran’s right to purchase fuel for TRR from the international market.

All these considerations fully justify the urgency of Iran’s civilian nuclear programme.

4. The alleged "crisis" over Iran's nuclear programme is manufactured. US/Israel and their allies have been claiming for years that Iran is dangerously within reach of possessing the bomb or the capability to make the bomb, with estimate ranging from several years to a year or even a few months. [1]

Nuclear power plants and atomic weapons both require enriched uranium but whereas weapons grade uranium must be enriched to 90% or above, low enriched uranium (LEU) suitable for power plants requires enrichment up to 5%, or for medical applications up to 19.75%. According to Dr Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group, because of contamination of Iranian uranium with heavy metals, Iran cannot possibly enrich beyond even 20% without support from Russia or China [2].

The US Secretary of Defence, Leon Panetta’s remarks) in December 2010 is a clear indication of the manufactured nature of this crisis. In an interview with the CBS, Panetta, raising the specter of war [3], said “It would probably be about a year before they could do it [build the bomb]. Perhaps a little less. But one proviso, …. if they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.” This total absence of “intelligence” was also reiterated by Pentagon Press Secretary, George Little, “The secretary [Panetta] was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon”. Pentagon spokesman confirmed that any attempt at diverting low-enriched uranium to a hidden facility and its conversion to weapons grade, would be instantly detected by the UN inspectors.

These admissions sharply contradict and belie the conclusions of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report of November 2011, that Iran “has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device”. According to the IAEA, this intelligence was given to it by “some member states”. As Pat Buchanan (Anti-War.Com) questions “Did the IAEA discover clandestine bomb-building that our own intelligence community failed to detect?” and if so, why the US National Intelligence Estimate, which in line with Pentagon’s statement above, states that there is no evidence of a weaponisation programme in Iran, not been modified accordingly? [ibid]

5. Iran has met its obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In 2002, the National Council of Resistance, which according to the US state department is a front organisation for the terrorist group, MEK (Modjahedin-e-Khalgh), allegedly ‘revealed’ to the IAEA the existence of two nuclear sites. These were the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and the heavy water reactor in Arak, which were still under construction. However, at that time, Iran was not obliged to either allow inspection of the sites or even inform the IAEA of the existence of the facilities, until six months prior to the introduction of nuclear material into the sites. Although in 1992, IAEA board of governors had introduced a new Safeguards Agreement according to which facilities must be reported at the planning phase, Iran was not a signatory to this agreement.

To boost confidence in its nuclear programme during the course of two years of negotiations with the EU3 (France, UK, Germany), the Iranian government voluntarily suspended its nuclear enrichment programme and in December 2003 also voluntarily implemented the IAEA's Additional Protocol for more intrusive inspections than those required under the NPT, [1] until February 2006, when under the US pressure, Iran’s file was reported to the UN Security Council.

The claim that Iran violated its NPT Safeguard obligations in not having disclosed the construction of its enrichment facility in Qom until September 2009, is, as in the case of similar charges with respect to the sites in Natanz and Arak, false and a distortion of Iran’s present obligations [2]. Under its NPT Safeguard obligations Iran was not obliged to disclose the facility to the IAEA until 180 days (6 months) in advance of introducing fissile material into it. In fact, Iran did so 18 months in advance. It is important to remember that the expectations would be valid only if Iran were still bound by the optional Additional Protocol [3]. Iran has offered to implement the Additional Protocol again if its file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA, but the offer has been rejected by the US and its Western allies.

Iran’s completely legal option of declaring its new nuclear sites only six months before the introduction of nuclear material in them, which is labeled as concealment by the West, started in the context of the US-backed invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein. Not only the US, Germany, and the UK were complicit in the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq which were used against Iranian soldiers and civilians, but Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 was treated with total impunity. Iranian leaders then concluded from these gross injustices, that international laws are only “ink on paper”.

But the most direct reasons for Iran’s non-declaration , were the American trade embargo on Iran and Washington's organized and persistent campaign to stop civilian nuclear technology reaching Iran from any source. For example, in 1995 Germany offered to let Kraftwerk Union (a subsidiary of Siemens) finish Iran's Bushehr reactor, but withdrew its proposal under US pressure [4]. The following year, China cancelled its contract to build a nuclear enrichment facility in Isfahan for the same reason [5]. Thus Washington systematically violated, with impunity, Article IV of the NPT, which allows “signatories the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”.

Nevertheless, as stated earlier, Iran's decision not to declare all of its nuclear installations did not violate its NPT obligations. As confirmed by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, who first provided satellite imagery and analysis in December 2002 [6], under the safeguards agreement in force at the time, "Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it."

Further, Western leaders and media often quote from the IAEA reports that Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. [7] [8] , they never mention in public that this kind of arbitrary accusation is applicable also to dozens of other NPT members, including South Africa, Egypt and Brazil as well 14 European countries including Germany that have not agreed to the optional NPT Additional Protocol to allow extra-intrusive inspections. [9] [10]

6. Iran has given unprecedented concessions on its nuclear programme. Unlike North Korea, Iran, in the face illegal IAEA and Security Council resolutions, and aggressive diplomacy and threats from the West, including chronic threats of military attack, has resisted the temptation to withdraw from the NPT.

Iran voluntarily accepted snap inspections under Additional Protocol until February 2006, and has offered to implement this again subject to the return of its nuclear file from the Security Council to the IAEA [1].

Iran has invited Western companies to develop Iran’s civilian nuclear programme. Such joint ventures would create the best assurance that the enriched uranium would not be diverted to a weapons programme. Such concessions are very rare in the world, but the U.S. and its allies have refused Iran's offer.

The nuclear swap (Tehran Agreement) deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in 2010, according to which Tehran agreed to swap 1200kg of its low enriched uranium with uranium rods already enriched to 20% for cancer treatment, was a huge compromise on the part of Iran, again rejected by the US. (see 7 below)

In September 2011, President Ahmadi-Nejad, speaking to the UN General Assembly, announced Iran’s preparedness to suspend the enrichment of uranium to the higher percentage of 20%, if the West provided Iran with uranium rods enriched to that level. This offer was repeated on Iranian State Television in October, "If they give us the 20 percent (Enriched) fuel, we will immediately halt 20 percent (Enrichment). This offer too was ignored by the Obama administration [2]. On 1st January 2012, Iran announced the domestic testing and production of its first fuel rods for Tehran Research Reactor. [3]

7. The Western alliance has not tried true diplomacy and relies instead on threats. Since Iran, once in the past, did suspend its enrichment programme for two years in 2003-2005 without any result, it now refuses to do so again before bilateral negotiations begin - as demanded by the White House - because it suspects, Washington - just as it did in Iraq - will stall with endless doubts regarding verification of suspension.

Another striking instance of the absence of genuine diplomacy is the case of Tehran Agreement of 2010, under Obama administration. In the fall of 2009, the Vienna Group (US, France, Russia and the IAEA) proposed that Iran swap 1,200 kilograms of its low-enriched uranium with fuel rods enriched to 20%, which Iran needed for the production of medical isotopes in Tehran Research reactor, for the treatment of some 800000 cancer patients. Iran accepted this offer in principle, but insisted on guarantees to ensure it would actually receive the fuel rods. The Obama administration walked away from the negotiating table, adopting a “take it or leave it” position [1].

Iran, on the other hand, emphasized its readiness for more negotiations over the fuel swap proposal. Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Brazilian President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, stated their willingness for mediating the Iranian nuclear swap deal in a meeting with President Obama during the Nuclear Security Summit in New York in April 2010. Accordingly, President Obama stated in a letter to President Lula that, for the US “Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile." President Obama further stated that “this element is of fundamental importance for the United States. For Iran, it would receive the nuclear fuel requested to ensure continued operation of the TRR to produce needed medical isotopes and, by using its own material, Iran would begin to demonstrate peaceful nuclear intent." [2]

On May 17, 2010, after 18 hours of negotiations in Tehran, Turkey, Brazil and Iran signed a third-country swap agreement (the “Tehran Agreement”) in which Iran compromised in every area it considered vital to its interests along the lines that President Obama had mentioned in his letter. [3] And yet, regardless of initial support for the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Agreement, President Obama decided to dismiss the Tehran Agreement [4] and push for the fourth round of sanctions against Iran in the UNSC [5].

8. UN SECURITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED

There has been no legal grounds for Iran’s referral to the UN Security Council. There has never been any evidence of a nuclear weaponisation program in Iran and Iran has fully cooperated with the IAEA within the framework of the NPT guidelines.

The two votes in 2005 and 2006 in the Governors’ Board of the IAEA to report Iran’s nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) were coerced and politicized moves that were, as explained by a leading international lawyer, legally untenable [1]. David Mulford, the US Ambassador to India, warned the Government of India in January 2006 that there would be no US-India nuclear deal if India did not vote against Iran at the IAEA. On 15 February 2007, Stephen Rademaker, the former US Assistant Secretary for International Security and Non-Proliferation, admitted publicly that the US coerced India to vote against Iran. [2] [3].

Clearly therefore, reporting Iran to the UN Security Council, carried out under US coercion, and any subsequent resolutions, lack legitimacy.

The process that led to the UNSC's involvement was also flawed because, under Western pressure, the IAEA's expectations of Iran exceeded NPT’s Safeguards requirements. As stated earlier, Iran in December 2003, voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment and voluntarily implemented the “Additional Protocol”, whilst in negotiation with EU3, as a confidence building measure. One of the main issues of concern for Iran was security guarantees from the US and its allies against aggression.

It is important to note the political background of the negotiations with the Europeans. In 2003, Iran’s president was the reformist President Khatami, who pioneered the idea of “Dialogue Amongst Civilisations” as an antithesis to Samuel Huntington’s divisive and hostile “Clash of Civilisations”. President Khatami, in 2003, with the approval of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, proposed a Grand Bargain to the US [4]. Included in Iran’s proposals were Iran’s recognition of the Saudi Initiative, that is, a de facto recognition of Israel, Iran using its influence to persuade Hezbullah and Hamas militant organisations to cease military activity inside Israel’s 1967 borders, and "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)". In return, Iran asked the US to offer security guarantees against aggression, to recognise Iran’s legitimate security interests in the region, and to accept and assist Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy programme, ie, Iran’s legal entitlements under the NPT. The US administration, under President Bush, having assigned Iran to the “Axis of Evil” a year previously, rejected this offer and remonstrated the Swiss Ambassador for having acted as the emissary. Hans Blix, the former UN Chief Inspector, following the referral of Iran’s files to the SC in January 2006, stated the centrality of addressing Iran’s security concerns, “My criticism about the Western side is that I don’t think that they have sufficiently interesting offers. … The Iranians may well be concerned about their security, having lots of U.S. troops in Iraq, bases in Pakistan, and they’re also getting foothold in the countries north of Iran and the NATO ally in Turkey to the West. And with all the talk about all weapons, all options, being on the table and with the regime changes that they've talked, I can see that the security would be a concern”. [5]

It was in the context of this intransigent warring attitude from the US, its persistence that Iran must permanently relinquish its right to enrichment and the impotence of the EU3 to offer anything of value, namely, acceptance of a fully monitored nuclear energy programme and security guarantees from the US, that the negotiations broke down. Prompted by IAEA board of governors’ resolution of 05/08/05, demanding Iran to forfeit permanently its right to enrichment and the subsequent reporting of Iran’s nuclear file to the Security Council, Iran, under the administration of President Ahmadi-Nedjad, resumed its enrichment programme and dropped its adherence to the Additional Protocol, which it had only voluntarily accepted for the duration of the negotiations.

Michael Spies of the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy has clarified the issue: "Under the Statute (Art. 12(C)) and the Safeguards Agreement, the Board may only refer Iran to the Security Council if it finds that, based on the report from the Director General, it cannot be assured that Iran has not diverted nuclear material for non-peaceful purpose. In the past, findings of `non-assurance' have only come in the face of a history of active and ongoing non-cooperation with IAEA safeguards. The pursuit of nuclear activities in itself, which is specifically recognized as a sovereign right, and which remain safeguarded, could not legally or logically equate to uncertainty regarding diversion." [6]

The IAEA Ex-Director General, Dr Mohamad ElBaradei, had in fact consistently confirmed the non-diversion to weaponisation, of nuclear material in Iran. He asserted unambiguously in his interview with New York Times on 7th September 2007 that in Iran “we have not come to see any undeclared activities ... We have not seen any weaponisation of their programme, nor have we received any information to that effect”. He repeatedly urged skeptics in Western capitals to help the IAEA by sharing any possible proof in their possession of suspicious nuclear activity in Iran. The IAEA-Iran work plan of August 2007 cleared all “outstanding issues” of concern, including Iran’s Plutonium experiments which were regarded as a “smoking gun” by Ex-Vice-President, Cheney. Dr ElBaradei, however, under pressure from Washington, said that he cannot rule out the existence of undeclared nuclear activities in the country. The IAEA report (15/11/2007) pointed out “However, it should be noted that, since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, pursuant to the Additional Protocol and as a transparency measure. As a result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear programme is diminishing”. [7]

The response from the US/Israel and their allies was immediately negative, accusing Iran of “selective cooperation” with the IAEA. Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s deputy prime minister at the time, called for the sacking of Dr ElBaradei over the IAEA’s recent report on Iran. The US pressed with the demand for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment. However, as Dr ElBaradei later asserted in his speech to the Governors’ Board of the IAEA in November 2007, according to the IAEA's Safeguards Implementation Report for 2005 (issued on 15 June 2006), 45 other countries, including 14 European countries, in particular Germany, are in this same category as Iran, since they have not adhered to the IAEA’s Additional Protocol (which Iran voluntarily enforced until 2006). Iran has been singled out among these countries by the west for political reasons.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, issued on 3 December 2007, refutes the US and Israeli accusations that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons programme. The NIE report had been held for nearly one year in an effort by Vice President Cheney's office to force the intelligence community to remove some of the dissenting judgments on Iran's nuclear program. Representing the views of 16 US intelligence agencies, the NIE on Iran sharply reverses its 2005 version that claimed Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The report assesses, with high confidence, that Iran's alleged military nuclear work ended in 2003, but fails to provide any evidence that such activity ever existed. If proof for this assessment had been found, it was the obligation of the US to provide it to the IAEA for on-the-ground verification.

The 2011 National Intelligence Estimate too once again states that there is no evidence that Iran is working to develop a nuclear weapon.

The NIE reports vindicate Iran’s claim that the decision by the Governors Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report its nuclear file to the UN Security Council in February 2006 and the subsequent Security Council resolutions and sanctions against Iran, lack legitimacy.

9. WESTERN HYPOCRISY

The UN resolutions against Iran, in contrast to the treatment of the US allies, South Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel, smack of double standards. For example, in the year 2000, South Korea enriched 200 milligrams of uranium to near-weapons grade (up to 77%), but was not referred to the UN Security Council. [1] [2]

India has refused to sign the NPT or allow inspections and has developed an atomic arsenal, but receives nuclear assistance from the US in violation of the NPT. More bizarrely, India has a seat on the governing board of IAEA and, under US pressure, voted to refer Iran as a violator, to the UN Security Council. Another non-signatory, Pakistan, clandestinely developed nuclear weapons but has been supported by the US as a “war on terror” ally.

Israel is a close ally of Washington, even though it has hundreds of clandestine nuclear weapons, has dismissed numerous UN resolutions and has refused to sign the NPT or open any of its nuclear plants to inspections.

The US itself is the most serious violator of the NPT. The only country to have ever used nuclear bombs in war, the US has refused to reduce its nuclear arsenal, in violation of Article VI of NPT. The US is also in breach of the Treaty because it is developing new generations of nuclear warheads for use against non-nuclear adversaries. Moreover, Washington has deployed hundreds of such tactical nuclear weapons all around the world in violation of Articles I and II of the NPT.

10. Iran has not threatened Israel or attacked another country In sharp contrast to the track record of the so-called ‘democracies’, US, Israel, UK and France, with a bloody history of invasion, slaughter and plunder of other countries, Iran has not threatened or attacked any country for two and a half centuries. Iran’s military spending per capita is among the lowest in its region. On the contrary, it is Iran that has been attacked on many occasions, including the Iraqi invasion in 1980, with the full backing of the US and its allies, which led to eight years of full-scale conflict and the loss of over a million lives. When Iraq used chemical weapons, supplied by the West, against Iranian troops, Iran did not retaliate in kind. [1] [2] [3] When Afghanistan's Taliban regime murdered eight Iranian diplomats in 1996 and remained unapologetic, Iran did not respond militarily.

Iran has been a consistent supporter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and called for a nuclear weapons free Middle East. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has declared repeatedly that Iran will not attack or threaten any country. He has also issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and banned nuclear weapons as “haraam”, that is, forbidden by Islamic law. He has reiterated this fatwa in his message to the Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Conference in Tehran in April 2010 [4]. Since Spring 2010, Iran has been the only country to allocate a state budget to hold an annual international conference for disarmament and non-proliferation in which representatives of some UN member nations and international NGO’s take part.

The comments of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad against Israel have been repeated by some of Iran's leaders since 1979 and constitute no practical threat. The statement attributed to him that “Israel should be wiped off the map” is a distortion of the truth and has been determined by a number of Farsi linguists, amongst them, Professor Juan Cole, to be a mistranslation. What he actually said was that “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Ahmadinejad has made clear that he envisions regime change in Israel through internal decay, similar to the bloodless demise of the Soviet Union or the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Shortly after Ahmadinejad’s comment, Iran’s supreme leader asserted categorically that Iran would not attack any country including Israel. Iranian leaders have said consistently for two decades that they will accept a two-state solution in Palestine if a majority of Palestinians favour that option.

Many U.S. political figures portray the Iranian leadership as irrational and who would use nuclear weapons as soon as they can develop them [5]. However, the nature of US concern about Iran’s nuclear programme is reflected in the significant 2011 remarks by Danielle Pletka, the vice-head of foreign and defence policy of the most influential neo-conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute. Pletka said “The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it” because Iran will then be viewed as “a responsible power” [6]. Another AEI member, Thomas Donnelly, further elaborated on the centrality of the issue of US/Israel hegemonic ambitions and regional dominance to the US/Iran stand-off, “We're fixated on the Iranian nuclear program while the Tehran regime has its eyes on the real prize: the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East [7].

In fact, according to Washington Post (29/12/2011) the belief that Iran would not pose an “existential threat” to Israel and that, in a hypothetical scenario, if Iran possessed the bomb, it would act rationally, is shared by many Israeli security officials past and present. The current head of Mossad, Tamir Pardo, addressing Israeli Ambassadors in Jerusalem on 28/12/2011, expressed this view, which is shared amongst many, by the former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, former Armed forces chief, Gabi Ashkenazi, former intelligence chief, Zeevi Farkash, as well as the majority in Israeli Cabinet, who all strongly oppose PM Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Ehud Barak’s drive to attack Iran’s nuclear plants, “Opponents to an attack plan say that Iran, as a rational state, would not launch a nuclear assault that would ensure a retaliatory Israeli strike on its cities, including holy sites”. [8]

11. Iran is under constant threat of illegal foreign intervention.

Iran has chronically suffered living under political, economic, military and psychological siege, war, and the prospect of war since the 1979 Revolution. The US and Israel with their vastly superior military capabilities, including massive nuclear arsenals, US military bases surrounding Iran in its neighbouring countries, and a constant naval presence in the Persian Gulf, have continually threatened Iran with the spectre of military attack and destruction.

All leading U.S. politicians, including President Obama, have threatened that in dealing with Iran “all options are on the table”, a menacing reference to military intervention, including a nuclear attack. The Nuclear Posture Review [2010] [1] of the United States singles out only one non-nuclear armed country, namely Iran, as a possible target for American nuclear attack. Israeli officials have also repeatedly threatened Iran with bombardment.

As reported by veteran investigative journalists, Seymour Hersh [2], and Reese Erlich [3], the US, Israel, and the UK have funded and aided dissident terrorist groups and separatist movements, both in and outside Iran, to destabilise, disintegrate [4] and wipe Iran off the map. As reported first by the renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersch in 2008 and confirmed consistently in recent years by the ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi, there are clandestine operations by the US, British and Israeli agents, who are arming, training and funding terrorist entities such as Jundollah in Baluchistan, Arab separatists in Khuzestan, and PJAK in Kurdistan.

The US, Israel, and the UK have engaged in black operations of kidnapping and sabotage, destroying industrial facilities and military plants, killing large numbers of military personnel and civilians, murdering Iranian scientists, and damaging nuclear plants through cyber wars. There is also the 100 million dollars congressional funding for ‘democracy’ promotion in Iran which constitute interference in Iran’s domestic affairs and Iranian people’s rights of sovereignty.

The ‘democracy’ promotion uses a campaign of misinformation and an intense psychological war. In March 2010, Michael Eisenstadt, senior fellow and director of the Washington Institute’s Military and Security Studies Programme, outlined the significance of “the use of words, actions and emotive images as part of a sustained campaign to shape the psychological environment in Iran [as] the greatest untapped source of US leverage over the Islamic Republic”. He said “Perhaps the most promising option is a strategic communication campaign – one that employ every means at the US government disposal to play into the [Iranian] regime’s paranoia” [5]. It is noteworthy that paranoia is the salient feature of the US and Israel’s foreign policies. Under the Obama administration, the U.S. has intensified its covert military operations in Iran.

These attempts at disintegration, intervention and domestic interference in Iran, violate the bilateral Algiers Accord of 1981, in which Washington renounced any such actions in the future. They also contravene Article 2 of the UN Charter which calls for respect of national sovereignty and forbids member countries from threatening or using force against other countries.

12. The 2009 Iranian Presidential elections and its aftermath are being exploited by pro-war forces

Many Western commentators point to the disputed 2009 Iranian elections and claim that, since there is a domestic opposition to the Iranian government, Iranians would support foreign intervention or an attempt at regime change. This is false and disingenuous. No opposition figure in Iran has ever asked for any kind of war, sanctions or even monetary help from outside the country.

While the idea of “targeted” sanctions may have some currency among a small minority of exile-based Iranians, it is strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of Iranians in general. There were reports of similar “popular support” for threats and “smart” sanctions against Iraq by exile groups like Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. Those claims were cynically cultivated by the U.S. and British neoconservatives to justify their drive toward war.

13. The Obama Administration has backtracked on its own engagement pledge and now actively opposes peaceful solutions. Barack Obama's presidential campaign included promises to move U.S. policy away from confrontation with Iran and toward “direct and unconditional negotiations.” Disappointingly, the Obama administration has backed away from that position. Its current policy is virtually the same as that of the Bush/Cheney administration: i.e., before there can be any negotiations, Iran must first give up its nuclear programme altogether.

The intransigence under the Obama administration became most evident with regard to the Iranian nuclear fuel swap proposal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil, in May of 2010. Obama who had proposed the nuclear swap as a test and a confidence building measure, backtracked following Iran’s concession to and signing of the deal.

Obama has kept the threat of “all options on the table”, and under intense pressure from the hawks in the Congress and Israel lobby [1], has agreed to the most devastating sanctions in Iran’s history which are by their nature moving inexorably towards open military confrontation with Iran. Israel Defence Minister, Ehud Barak’s remarks about the “resolve and risk-taking” of Obama administration in support of Israel and in displaying such aggressive stance against Iran, is considered an asset in Obama’s re-election. [2]

14. SANCTIONS A PRELUDE TO WAR

Following the publication of the November 2011 IAEA report on Iran, the US and its Western allies, spearheaded by UK, France and Canada, have escalated the imposition of unprecedented and crushing sanctions against Iran. The four Security Council sanctions extricated through massive US pressure, are used to provide a veneer of legitimacy for collective punishment of Iranian people.

All pretence of “smart sanctions”, ostensibly to spare the Iranian people from the worst effects of sanctions, have now been dropped. Proponents of broad sanctions have argued and won the imposition of sanctions that induce collective suffering. The view of Rep. Sherman (CA) that “critics … argued that [sanctions on Iran] will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that”, (The Hill 09/08/2010) [1] is now openly endorsed in the US Congress and by its Western allies. Democratic Congressman, Gary Ackerman (NY) explains “The goal … is to inflict crippling, unendurable economic pain over there”, “Iran’s banking sector — especially its central bank — needs to become the financial equivalent of Chernobyl: radioactive, dangerous and most of all, empty.” And President Obama, in his desperation to appease the warmongers, boasts of applying “the toughest sanctions that Iran's ever experienced, and [that] is having an impact inside of Iran." [2]

The passage of three draconian sanctions bills by the US House of Representatives on 15 December 2011, [3] is an act of war, leading to military confrontation. Kirk-Menendez Amendment to the Defence Authorisation Bill (H.R. 1540) sanctions foreign central banks, companies and financial institutions that conduct transactions with Iran’s Central Bank, with limited waiver authority from the President. “Iran Threat Reduction Act” (H.R. 1905) imposes embargo on Iranian export of petroleum, oil and gas. The bill broadens the sanctions to include companies whose subsidiaries trade with Iran and sanctions the construction of infrastructure such as ports, railways, and roads to deliver refined petroleum products within Iran [4]. The prohibition of diplomacy in the bill, which for the first time in US history bars the US President to engage in dialogue and negotiation with an adversary, i.e., Iran, is an ominous move towards war, and could potentially impose unprecedented restrictions on freedom of association and expression for American citizens themselves.

The rational offered for these sanctions is that revenues from oil, gas and other energy products, which account for nearly 80% of Iran’s foreign exchange revenue, help finance Iran’s nuclear program. In reality, Iran’s nuclear programme accounts for a fraction of this revenue. “These same revenues also account for the bulk of Iran's public budget which helps finance public health services, public education, subsidized food for the poor and many other social services programs”. [5]

Cutting Iran’s foreign revenue will strangulate the Iranian economy and inflict enormous harm and pain on the Iranian population. These sanctions are contrary to international law, as pointed out both by Russia and China, and are against moral principles, which lead to crimes against humanity. According to the UNICEF study [6], until 2001, the US/UK sanctions in Iraq, had resulted in the death of at least 500,000 children of disease and malnutrition. It is estimated that the number soared to over a million until the 2003 invasion and beyond, when the sanctions remained in force. Sanctions would not however bring the Islamic Republic to its knees. Sanctions weaken civil society and make the population reliant on state rations and hand-outs. Furthermore, any kind of sanctions, including the so-called "targeted" or "smart" sanctions, are viewed by the Iranian people as the West's punishment for Iran's scientific progress (uranium enrichment for reactor fuel). As sanctions tighten, nationalist fervour will strengthen the resolve of Iranians to defend the country's civilian nuclear programme and to unite against war.

The ultimate goal of sanctions is a forced regime change, and installation of a US client regime in Iran.

15. THE THREAT OF MILITARY ATTACK ON IRAN IS IMMINENT

A political, economic and military siege is being steadily tightened around Iran pushing towards a full scale Western military attack, led by the US and the UK, and driven by Israel and its lobbies, most importantly American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The frenzied war drums of the final months of the Bush era, which temporarily receded by the world banking crisis and the new dawn of the Presidency of Obama in November 2008, have gathered an intensity and immediacy reminiscent of the months preceding the invasion of Iraq.

The remarks by the US Chair of the Joint Chief of Staff, Martin Dempsey (20/12/2011) that the preparations for war with Iran “are evolving to a point that are executionable” [1] and that the US can successfully attack Iran, if necessary, are presented as more of a warning threat rather than an actual expression of intent. However, in the tense and paranoid climate of bullying and uncompromising confrontation, fuelled by unrelenting pressure from Israel and the hawks pushing for war, it leaves no doubt that they could rapidly actualise into an unstoppable and catastrophic confrontation [2].

All the Republican presidential candidates, with the honourable exception of Ron Paul, with keen eyes on Israel lobbies’ purse to fund their campaigns, have committed themselves to war and regime change in Iran, should they be elected. The anti-Iran stance in the Congress, however, is bipartisan and nearly unanimous. Many Congressional Democrats are committed supporters and beneficiaries of Israel lobbies’ funding and drive Israel’s anti-Iran agenda in the Congress. There is immense pressure by Israel on Obama administration to cut out diplomacy, enforce the most crushing sanctions, and move beyond aggressive posturing into an actual military confrontation with Iran [3]. Amongst the most influential lobbyists for war are the CEOs of the biggest military industrial complexes. These war profiteers through their massive lobbying budgets exert blackmail and corrupting influence on the Congress, the Pentagon, and the media, for a war that would create lucrative contracts and huge profits for a miniscule but powerful minority sitting “at the top of the one percent of the “one percent” of the population” in the United States [4] [5].

Any military attack against Iran would be a blatant violation of international law and UN charter. To advocate such an illegal action is to advocate the same crime for which the Nazi leaders of Germany were tried and convicted in the Nuremberg Trials: crime against humanity and crime against peace.

The proponents of war are frantically pushing the idea of the feasibility of a military attack on Iran from the realm of unimaginable and psychotic fantasies of a lunatic fringe, into the mainstream discussion, and, in the absence of any evidence of nuclear weaponisation or Security Council approval, are hard at work weaving ‘legal’ justifications for such an attack. [6] [7] On another front, a federal judge ruled Iran liable in the terrorist attacks of September 11 on Twin Towers for having allegedly aided Al-Qaida in carrying out the attacks. “The findings also said Iran continues to provide material support and resources to al-Qaida by providing a safe haven for al-Qaida leadership and rank-and-file al-Qaida members”. [8]

The UK is playing a key role in isolating Iran and pushing towards a military confrontation. The UK, a historical accomplice of the US and Israel in covert operations supporting terrorist groups and stirring unrest in Iran, is highly likely an accomplice in the “black operations” involving industrial/nuclear sabotage and possibly murder of Iranian scientists. In October 2010, John Sawers, the head of M16, publicly called for “intelligence-led operations to make it more difficult for countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons”. Since then three Iranian scientists have been murdered in Iran and a sophisticated cyber-war has targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities [9]. The Guardian reported in November 2011 that the British armed forces had stepped up a contingency plan for taking part in a potential military attack against Iran. [10] [11]

The unilateral decision by the British government to close the British Embassy in Tehran and the Iranian Embassy in London, following the seizure of the British Embassy in Tehran, is an unprecedented over-reaction to an event for which the Iranian government has apologised. The embassy seizure by an angry crowd was provoked by crippling sanctions imposed by Britain on Iranian Central Bank and all financial institutions, with the expressed intent to "cripple' the Iranian economy. The closure of the Embassy was immediately followed by yet harsher economic sanctions on Iranian companies and the extension of diplomatic freeze and sanctions on Iran to other European countries [12].

The US congressional Research Service in its document "Iran Sanctions”, (October 2011), states [13]“…reducing diplomatic ties with Iran, expelling diplomats, prohibiting commercial air flights to and from Iran .. as “other steps” by Europeans to accompany crippling sanctions.

This policy on reduction of diplomacy is remarkably in line with the claims by the former British Ambassador to Uzbakistan, Craig Murray, that in an extra-parliamentary secret meeting held last February between former Defence Minister, Liam Fox, the British Ambassador to Israel, William Gould, and Israel lobbyist, Adam Werritty, with Mossad Representatives in Israel, the discussion had “focused on ways to ensure Britain assisted in creating favourable diplomatic conditions for an attack on Iran” [14] [15].

Diplomacy which was the hopeful hallmark of the Obama administration has progressively and systematically crumbled under the aggressive storm of the Israel lobby and its bi-partisan neo-conservative supporters in the Congress and within the Obama administration. The euphemistically named, “targeted” sanctions, supposedly designed to spare the population from suffering, have now given way to, in Obama’s own words, “the toughest sanctions Iran has experienced”. Not only the embargo on the export of oil and Iran’s Central Bank and financial institutions are designed explicitly to cut the country’s lifeline, and as such, are an act of war, but the sheer enforcement of blocking Iran to export its oil, would inevitably lead to confrontation and the risk of an all-out war in the Strait of Hormuz, with massive and unforeseen consequences for the region and the world. The menacing specter of war is already visible through the exchange of threats and rhetoric. In addition, the “Iran Threat Reduction Act” (H.R. 1905), revived from early Bush era, provides an explosive component to an already incendiary situation. The bill prohibits any employee of US government to have any contact “in an official or unofficial capacity” with any person who is an agent, official, affiliated with or representative of the government of Iran. The bill denies any waiver authority for the President to ease this embargo, unless the President can convince the congress 15 days prior to the exercise of the waiver that “failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States”.

This exclusion of any form of diplomacy and dialogue is an unmistakable recipe for manufacturing casus belli by removing any possibility of clearing misperceptions in an increasingly hostile and paranoid environment. The previous Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, expressed deep concern in October 2011, “If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right, that there will be miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world.” [16]. This Prohibition of diplomacy is a clear proof of an intention for war and harbours catastrophic consequences for regional and international peace.

A peaceful resolution of this intensifying conflict can only be achieved by rejecting the current illegitimate course of threats and sanctions. The U.S. policy of aggression must be replaced with unconditional and comprehensive negotiations between Iran and the U.S., based on mutual respect, to build trust between the two sides and find a solution to the stand-off that recognizes Iran’s sovereignty and national rights.

16. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF AN ATTACK ON IRAN

Bombing cannot end Iran's nuclear programme. Since Iran already has the expertise to enrich uranium up to the 3.5% grade for a fuel cycle, no degree of bombing will halt Iran’s civilian nuclear programme. On the contrary, the resulting mass casualties and destruction would strengthen the voices that argue Iran, like North Korea, should build a nuclear deterrent.

An attack on Iran will unite Iranians against the US and its allies. A great majority of the public in Iran support the country’s right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. This has been confirmed by all opinion polls conducted in the country, including polls taken by Western institutions [1]. Therefore, a bombing campaign will not lead to an uprising by the Iranian people for regime change as envisaged by the US. Rather, it would ignite nationalist feelings in the country and unite the population, including most of the government's critics, against the West.

A nuclear attack on Iran would fuel a new nuclear arms race and ruin the NPT. Any military intervention against Iran will lead to a regional catastrophe and expanded terrorism. Senator McCain, the former Republican presidential hopeful, who advocated the use of force on Iran, has predicted that an attack against Iran will lead to Armageddon. American or Israeli aggression on Iran, coming on the heels of the Iraq disaster, would inflame the grievance and outrage of Muslims worldwide and help jihadi extremists with their recruitment campaign. The region wide conflagration resulting from an Israel/US attack on Iran would dwarf the Iraq catastrophe [2].

The state of siege the US and its allies have imposed on Iran with their daily threats of military attack, economic warfare and oil embargo, as well as covert military and terrorist operations to destablise the Islamic Republic with the aim of regime change has played a key role in restricting the country’s civil society and democracy. This would of course be dwarfed by the consequences of a military assault on the country. Only by removing the threat against Iran, the country can find its own road toward a full flourishing of democracy.

The western hawkish strategy against Iran would by its very objective logic lead to a military conflict with devastating consequences for the people of Iran, the region and the whole world. It would send the price of a barrel of oil to up to $300 which would bring a complete collapse of the fragile world economy, causing unimaginable hardship to the people of the west and the whole world. The West is thus pursuing a lose-lose strategy which will only benefit a tiny minority in the military-industrial complexes as well as some crazy Zionist and Christian fundamentalists who seek to hasten the coming of the Messiah by pushing for war and Armageddon. Against this cataclysmic scenario, there is a simple win-win strategy for the west which would only require sitting with Iranians to negotiate in good faith. Indeed, Iran is categorically against nuclear weapons and the West demands that Iran does not develop them. This is clearly the ideal situation as a common ground between Iran and the West. But it will take a huge mass mobilization by the people in the west to pressure their leaders to opt for this win-win situation and avert a catastrophic situation for the world.

References

Introduction

[1] Ebrahim Afsah, "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking", The German Law Journal, No. 9 (September 2003), n. 5

>>> RAMSEY CLARK AND UNAC STATEMENTS

2010-06-22T02:35:00.000-07:00

Groups demand U.S. hands off Iran

Jan 18, 2012

Stop the campaign of terror against Iran and its scientists
The following statement was issued by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and co-founder and representative of the International Action Center:
Another Iranian scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, has been assassinated in Iran by a car bomb. This is the fifth Iranian scientist targeted by assassins working in Iran in two years. Four attacks succeeded. This is a deadly escalation of the covert criminal activities conducted by the U.S., Israel and their terrorists and domestic spies in Iran against the government and people of Iran.
While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has denied any U.S. involvement, the important and undeniable truth is that the governments of the U.S. and Israel have openly declared Iran as an enemy and have publicly stated that they will use all means necessary, not excluding military attack, to change the Iranian government using Iran’s efforts to produce nuclear energy as an excuse.
The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is an effort to create fear in the Iranian people, opposition to their own government and to monopolize nuclear research and development of nuclear power. The aim is to stop Iran’s drive for industrial and technological independence on which the independence of Iran and the freedom of its people depend.
Those who forget the past are condemned to its repetition. Do we remember that the Shah, who ruled Iran for 25 years on behalf of the U.S., had a huge nuclear energy program intended to replace depleted fossil fuels? Do we realize his billions of dollars of arms purchased from the U.S. with the wealth of the Iranian people helped fund the U.S arms research, development and production that now threaten Iran?
In the decades since the Shah fled, sanctions, sabotage and threats have escalated into dangerous new decisions to send a U.S. nuclear aircraft carrier, destroyers and nuclear submarines into the Persian Gulf and impose harsher sanctions on trade, and an oil embargo. All of these threats are threats against peace and violations of international law.
A just society can have no interest in stopping the peaceful progress of other nations and peoples.
No to another war for oil, no to foreign government domination and foreign corporate exploitation of Iran, or any other country.
We urge all who oppose another war of ever greater massive destruction and death to speak out in this hour of maximum peril.
UNAC statement on assassination of Iranian scientist and growing U.S. war threats
The following is an edited excerpt from a statement issued Jan. 16 by the United National Antiwar Coalition:
Another Iranian scientist has been assassinated in Iran by a car bombing. ... This is a dangerous escalation of the covert activities conducted by the CIA and Israeli intelligence and their domestic spies in Iran against the government and people of Iran.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.” However, both the Israeli and the [U.S.] governments have admitted to covert activity in Iran. Irrespective of the actors, the assassinations of law-abiding scientists living and working in Iran is a reprehensible act that should be condemned by all.
Considering that Hillary Clinton threatened Iran with military attack, it is disingenuous for her to state that the U.S. denies involvement in any act of violence within Iran. A military attack on Iran, especially an attack on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities, would produce results similar to a nuclear attack (U.S. Concerned Scientists report). It would be the most violent act against the people of Iran, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.
It is extremely important that all international and especially U.S. antiwar and progressive organizations condemn these acts of assassination of innocent citizens and all forms of violent and aggressive actions by the U.S., Israel and the Iranian opposition.
Condemn the assassination of Iranian scientists. End all sanctions against Iran. End covert activities inside Iran. End all war threats against Iran.

>>> THE UNITED NATIONAL ANTI-WAR COALITION (STATEMENT) ON IRAN

2010-06-19T02:38:00.000-07:00

The United NationalAnti-War Coalition (UNAC)

calls on the entire U.S.progressive movement

to immediately andenergetically raise the demand:

“No War, NoSanctions, No Internal Interference in Iran!”

DECEMBER 2, 2011

At no time since the Iranian people rose up against thehated U.S-installed Shah has a U.S./Israeli military attack against Iran seemedmore possible. Following three decades of unrelenting hostility, the last fewmonths have seen a steady escalation of charges, threats, sanctions and actualpreparations for an attack. These are just a few of the most recentdevelopments:

* Beginning in late October, Israelimedia began widely speculating that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuwas heavily lobbying for military strikes against Iran's nuclear energy sites. (1)

* On Nov. 2, Israel test-fired a missilesaid to be able to both carry a nuclear warhead and reach Iranian territory. (2)

* Britain's armed forces have reportedlystepped up contingency planning for potential military action against Iran. (3)

* These developments followed widelychallenged U.S. allegations of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudiambassador to the United States, an attack that top U.S. officials claim was tobe carried out by a hit-man hired from the Zeta drug cartel, known to be deeplyinfiltrated by U.S. anti-drug agents. (4)

* A Congressional bill promoted by theAmerican Israel Public Affairs Committee would forbid the President fromspeaking to Iranian officials without explicit permission from Congress – arestriction unprecedented in U.S. history. (5)

* In November, the Boeing Company sentthe U.S. Air Force the first of 20 “bunker-busting” bombs, designed to destroyunderground facilities such as those housing Iran's nuclear energy program. Thebombs, which cost a total of about $314 million, are each nearly five tonsheavier than anything else in the military's arsenal. (6)

* Both the U.S. and the U.K. haveimposed new sanctions against Iran's banking system, hoping to economicallystrangle the country's economy. (7)

* Meanwhile, the Pentagon is hard atwork strengthening its military alliance with the Persian Gulf states that,together with U.S.-occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, form a military semi-circlearound the Islamic Republic. (8)

The central charge against Iran has been that it is tryingto develop a nuclear weapon. Iran denies the charge, and the simple fact isthat there is no evidence to support it. (9)But that doesn't stop the U.S. and its allies, along with the major news media,from relentlessly repeating the accusation as if it were a proven fact.

On Nov. 8, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog International AtomicEnergy Agency released its latest report on Iran's nuclear program, a programIran insists is solely designed to produce electricity, not atomic or nuclearweapons, as is claimed by the U.S. and other Western powers. The report doesnot say that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb.It repeats past charges; it introduces new “evidence” it says it received from10 countries, but never names the countries and refuses to show Iran the actual“evidence;” it quotes from intelligence sources it does not identify; and ituses innuendo and political spin to leave the impression that Iran is about toconstruct nuclear weapons – but it tellingly never makes that charge. (10)

It is important to note that IAEA reportson Iran have become much more critical since the departure of its formerDirector General, Dr.Mohamed ElBaradei of Egypt. Since Dec.1, 2009, the agency has been led by Yukiya Amano, a career diplomat with theJapanese Foreign Ministry nominated for the position by the government ofJapan, a close U.S. ally. (11)

Meanwhile, almost never mentioned is thefact that, as a signatory to the international Nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty, Iran has an internationally recognized right to develop and use nuclearenergy for peaceful purposes. (12) Whether or not we agree that nuclear power is a safe energyoption, the fact is that Iran's pursuit of it is legal. Meanwhile, Israel, acountry with 200-300 nuclear weapons (13) that is threatening to attack Iran, is one of only threecountries that still refuse to sign the NPT.

What is crystal clear is that Washingtonwants a regime change in Tehran. Why? Because the Iranian government controlsthe world's third largest oil reserves, refuses to open them to exploitation byWestern oil companies and is the last real obstacle to U.S. military, economicand political control over the critically strategic Middle East. Whileactivists may hold different views of Iran's internal political system, we mustall agree that the U.S. government, which has blatantly lied about the threatsposed by other nations, has no right to impose its will on countries formerlycolonized and exploited by the West. This is a simple question of the right ofoppressed nations to self-determination.

When Iraq controlled its own oil andinsisted on pursuing its own political path, the U.S. falsely accused it ofdeveloping weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Qaeda and responsibility forthe 9/11 attacks, paving the way for a brutal and entirely unjustifiednine-year war. Now more than 5,000 U.S. soldiers and contractors and hundredsof thousands of Iraqis are dead, millions have been wounded and a third of thepopulation has been displaced. But Iraqi oil is now open for Westernexploitation.

Opinion polls show the U.S. public isopposed to the ongoing wars, let alone a new one. (14) Instead, we arewaking up in a mass way to the fact that a tiny 1% of the population owns andruns this country – the 1% that promotes and profits from war.

We don't want another war, we can't affordanother war, we won't accept another war. And we don't have to. Like themillions fighting for freedom and justice around the world, we too can make adifference. In whatever struggle you are engaged, please find the strength anddetermination to raise one more sign, one more banner, one more criticalslogan:

“NoWar, No Sanctions, No InternalInterference inIran!” 12/2/11

United National AntiwarCoalition (UNAC)

PO Box 123, Delmar, NY12054 n Phone: 518-227-6947 n Email: UNACpeace@gmail.com n Website:www.UNACpeace.org 

(1) Haaretz(Israel's oldest daily newspaper) - Nov. 2, 2011: “Netanyahu trying to persuadecabinet to support attack on Iran”

ynetnews.com(English online version of Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's most widely readnewspaper) - Oct. 28, 2011: “Amos Gilad: Iran is

massive threatthat must be dealt with”

(2) Reuters – Nov.2, 2011 - “Israel test-fires missile as Iran debate rages”

(3) Guardian – Nov.2, 2011: “UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears”

(4) The New YorkTimes – Oct. 24, 2011: “U.S. Agencies Infiltrating Drug Cartels Across Mexico”

(5) H.R. 1905: IranThreat Reduction Act of 2011

AIPAC Website –July 2011: “The Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 (H.R. 1905)”

NationofChange.org– Nov. 24, 2011: “In Defense of Diplomacy”

Global ResearchWebsite – Nov. 5, 2011: “AIPAC's 'War With Iran' Bill Passes House Committee”

PoliticalCorrection Website – Dec. 1, 2011 - “Chutzpah: AIPAC’s Newest Iran SanctionsBill Will Prohibit Diplomacy”

(6) Los AngelesTimes – Nov. 16, 2011 “Boeing delivers first batch of 30,000-pound bombs to AirForce”

(7) BBC – Nov. 21,2011: “UK severs ties with Iranian banks”

(8) The New YorkTimes – Oct. 29, 2011 - “U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit FromIraq”

(9) Campaign AgainstSanctions and Military Intervention Against Iran Website – August 2010: “CASMIIFact Sheet on the U.S.-Iran Stand-Off”

(10) IAEA Website –Nov. 18, 2011: “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevantprovisions of Security Council resolutions

in theIslamic Republic of Iran”

(11) IAEA Website -Director General Yukiya Amano -Biography

(12) UnitedNations Website - “The Treaty on theNon-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)”

(13) The Guardian –May 23, 2010: “Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclearweapons”

The Guardian– May 23, 2010: “Israel's nuclear weapons: the end to nods, winks and blindeyes”

Federationof American Scientists Website – Jan. 8,2007: “Nuclear Weapons”

(14) CBS – Nov. 11,2011: “Poll: Americans' views on foreign policy”

>>> Iran, Venezuela Establish Joint Oil Company

2010-04-18T02:06:00.000-07:00

April 28, 2010
Source: ISNA, Tehran

Iranian state-owned oil company Petropars andVenezuelan national oil company PDVSA founded a joint oil company "VENIROC" aseach county holds 50 percent of the total share.

The company is founded in Spain and we are intalks to implement joint projects, Petropars Managing Director Gholam RezaManouchehri told ISNA.
He also said VENIROC officials are in talks to build a refinery in Syria andadded that, "Iran and Venezuela will put the project into practice if our demandis accepted."
The Syrian refinery is to produce 140,000 oil barrels a day co-financed by Iran,Venezuela and Syria.
The refinery is to receive 20 percent of Iran's heavy oil, 30 percent ofVenezuela's super-heavy oil, 25 percent of Syria's heavy oil and 25 percent ofits light oil.
The project needs 2.6 billion dollars investment, 33 percent of which is to befinanced by Venezuela, 26 percent by Iran, 26 percent by Iran and 15 percent bySyria.

>>> Israel's Bellicose Threats Against Iran

2010-04-10T01:40:00.000-07:00

By URI AVNERY
April 5, 2010
Source: Counterpunch

"HOLD ME back!” is a part of Israeli folklore. It reminds us of our childhood.

When a boy has a scuffle with a bigger and stronger boy, he pretends that he is going to attack him any moment and shouts to the spectators: “Hold me back, or I am going to kill him!”

Israel is now in such a situation. We pretend that we are going to attack Iran at any moment and shout to the entire world: “Hold us back or…”

And the world does indeed hold us back.

* * *

IT IS dangerous to prophesy in such matters, especially when we are dealing with people not all of whom are wise and not all of whom are sane. Yet I am ready to maintain: there is no possibility whatsoever that the government of Israel will send the air force to attack Iran.

I am not going to enter into military matters. Is our air force really capable of executing such an operation? Are circumstances similar to those that prevailed 28 years ago, when the Iraqi reactor was successfully destroyed? Is it at all possible for us to eliminate the Iranian nuclear effort, whose installations are dispersed throughout the large country and buried far below the surface?

I want to focus on another aspect: is it politically feasible? What would be the consequences?

* * *

FIRST OF ALL, a basic rule of Israeli reality: the State of Israel cannot start any large-scale military operation without American consent.

Israel depends on the US in almost every respect, but in no sphere is it more dependent than in the military one.

The aircraft that must execute the mission were supplied to us by the US. Their efficacy depends on a steady flow of American spare parts. At that range, refueling from US-built tanker aircraft would be necessary.

The same is true for almost all other war material of our army, as well as for the money needed for their acquisition. Everything comes from America.

In 1956, Israel went to war without American consent. Ben-Gurion thought that his collusion with the UK and France was enough. He was vastly mistaken. One hundred hours after telling us that the “Third Kingdom of Israel” had come into being, he announced with a broken voice that he was going to evacuate all the territories just conquered. President Dwight Eisenhower, together with his Soviet colleague, had submitted an ultimatum, and that was the end of the adventure.

Since then, Israel has not started a single war without securing the agreement of Washington. On the eve of the Six-day War, a special emissary was sent to the US to make sure that there was indeed American agreement. When he returned with an affirmative answer, the order for the attack was issued.

On the eve of Lebanon War I, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon rushed to Washington to obtain American consent. He met with Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who agreed – but only on condition that there would be a clear provocation. A few days later there just happened to be an attempt on the life of the Israeli ambassador in London, and the war was on.

The Israeli army’s offensives against Hezbollah (“Lebanon War II”) and Hamas (“Cast Lead”) were possible because they were cast as part of the American campaign against “Radical Islam”.

Ostensibly, that is also true for an attack on Iran. But no.

* * *

BECAUSE AN Israeli attack on Iran would cause a military, political and economic disaster for the United States of America.

Since the Iranians, too, realize that Israel could not attack without American consent, they would react accordingly.

As I have written here before, a cursory glance at the map suffices to indicate what would be the immediate reaction. The narrow Hormuz Strait at the entrance of the Persian (or Arabian) Gulf, through which a huge part of the world’s oil flows, would be sealed at once. The results would shake the international economy, from the US and Europe to China and Japan. Prices would soar to the skies. The countries that had just begun to recover from the world economic crisis would sink to the depths of misery and unemployment, riots and bankruptcies.

The Strait could be opened only by a military operation on the ground. The US simply has no troops to spare for this – even if the American public were ready for another war, one much more difficult than even those of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even doubtful whether the US could help Israel to defend itself against the inevitable counter-stroke by Iranian missiles.

The Israeli attack on a central Islamic country would unite the entire Islamic world, including the entire Arab world. The US, which has spent the last few years laboring mightily to form a coalition of “moderate” Arab states (meaning: countries governed by dictators kept by the US) against the “radical” states. This pack would immediately become unstuck. No Arab leader would be able to stand aside while the masses of his people were gathering in tumultuous demonstrations in the squares.

All this is clear to any knowledgeable person, and even more so to the American military and civilian leaders. Secretaries, generals and admirals have been sent to Israel to make this clear to our leaders in a language that even kindergarten kids can understand: No! Lo! La! Nyet!

* * *

IF SO, why has the military option not been removed from the table?

Because the US and Israel like it lying there.

The US likes to pose as if it can hardly hold back the ferocious Israeli Rottweiler on its leash. This puts pressure on the other powers to agree to the imposition of sanctions on Iran. If you don’t agree, the murderous dog could leap out of control. Think about the consequences!

What sanctions? For some time now, this terrifying word – “sanctions” – has been bedeviling everybody on the international stage. They are going to be imposed “within weeks”. But when one inquires what it is all about, one realizes that there is a lot of smoke and very little fire. Some commanders of the Revolutionary Guards may be hurt, some marginal damage inflicted on the Iranian economy. The “paralyzing sanctions” have disappeared, because there was no chance that Russia and China would agree. Both do very good business with Iran.

Also, there is very little chance that these sanctions would stop the production of the bomb, or even slow it down. From the point of view of the Ayatollahs, this effort is the prime imperative of national defense – only a country with nuclear arms is immune from American attack. Faced with the repeated threats by American spokesmen to overthrow their regime, no Iranian government could act differently. The more so since during the last century, the Americans and the British have repeatedly done exactly that. Iranian denials are perfunctory. According to all reports, even the most extreme Iranian opponents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad support the acquisition of the bomb and would rally behind him if attacked.

In this respect, the Israeli leadership is right: nothing will stop Iran’s endeavor to obtain a nuclear bomb except the massive employment of military power. The “sanctions” are childish games. The American administration is talking about them in glowing terms in order to cover up the fact that even mighty America is unable to stop the Iranian bomb.

* * *

WHEN NETANYAHU & Co. criticize the inability of the American leaders to act against Iran, they answer in the same coin: you, too, are not serious.

And indeed, how serious are our leaders about this? They have convinced the Israeli public that it is a matter of life and death. Iran is led by a madman, a new Hitler, a sick anti-Semite, an obsessive Holocaust-denier. If he got his hands on a nuclear bomb, he would not hesitate for a moment to drop it on Tel Aviv and Dimona. With this sword hanging over our heads, this is no time for trivial matters, such as the Palestinian problem and the occupation. Everyone who raises the Palestinian question in a meeting with our leaders is immediately interrupted: Forget this nonsense, let’s talk about the Iranian bomb!!

But Obama and his people turn the argument around: if this is an existential danger, they say, please draw the conclusions. If this matter endangers the very existence of Israel, sacrifice the West Bank settlements on this altar. Accept the Arab League peace offer, make peace with the Palestinians as quickly as possible. That will ease our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and free our forces. Also, Iran would have no more pretext for war with Israel. The masses of the Arab world would not support it anymore.

And the conclusion: If a new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem is more important to you than the Iranian bomb, the matter is clearly not really so critical for you. And that, with all due modesty, is my opinion, too.

* * *

THE DAY before yesterday a correspondent of Israel’s popular Channel 2 called me and asked, in a shocked voice: “Is it true that you have given an interview to the Iranian news agency?

“That’s true,” I told her. The agency mailed me some questions about the political situation, and I answered.

“Why did you do this?” she asked/accused.

“Why not?” I replied. That was the end of the conversation.

And indeed, why not? True, Ahmadinejad is a repulsive leader. I hope that the Iranians will get rid of him, and assume that this will happen sooner or later. But our relations with Iran do not depend on one single person, whoever he may be. They go back to ancient times and were always friendly – from the time of Cyrus until the time of Khomeini (whom we provided with arms to fight the Iraqis.)

In Israel, the portrayal of Iran nowadays is a caricature: a primitive, crazy country, with nothing on its mind but the destruction of the Zionist state. But it suffices to read a few good books about Iran (I would recommend William Polk’s “Understanding Iran”) which describe one of the oldest civilized countries in the world, which has given birth to several great empires and made a remarkable contribution to human culture. It has an old and proud tradition. Some scholars believe that the Jewish religion was profoundly influenced by the ethical teachings of Zoroaster (Zarathustra).

Whatever the rantings of Ahmadinejad, the real rulers of the country, the clerics, conduct a cautious and sober policy, and have never attacked another country. They have many important interests, and Israel is not among them. The idea that they would sacrifice their own glorious homeland in order to destroy Israel is ludicrous.

The simple truth is that there is no way to prevent the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Better to think seriously about the situation that would be created: a balance of terror like the one between India and Pakistan, the elevation of Iran to the rank of a regional power, the need to start a sober dialogue with it.

But the main conclusion is: to make peace with the Palestinian people and the entire Arab world, in order to draw the rug from under any Iranian posture of defending them from us.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

>>> Is Iran Producing Medical Isotopes?

2010-04-07T00:57:00.000-07:00

Clarifying the Iranian Nuclear Swap Deal

By JULIEN MERCILE

April 7, 2010

Source: Counterpunch

Thelatest chapter in the Iranian nuclear crisis revolves around a possible“nuclear fuel swap” through which Iran would send most of its low-enriched uranium stocks (LEU at 3.5%) abroad, possibly to Russia andFrance, which would further enrich it (making it LEU at 19.5%) and thenturn it into fuel rods. The fuel rods would be sent to Iran, which could use them in the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) to produce much needed medical isotopes. The problem for Iran at the moment is that the TRR was last refueled in 1993 by Argentina, but it will soon run out of fuel (perhaps in a few months).

The swap deal could be a win-win for both Iran and the West. The West should be pleased by the removal of a good portion of enriched uranium from Iranian soil since this will reduce the possibility that Tehran could decide to use it to make nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium, HEU at 90%). For Iran, fuel for its TRR would allow it to keep producing important isotopes used in the medical field and on which hundreds of thousands of Iranian cancer patients rely.

However, there has been some confusion among experts on the following question: Is Iran currently producing its own medical isotopes, or is it only importing them from other countries? It is important to clarify this issue since the ways in which the latest crisis can be resolved depend in part on what exactly Iran is doing.

Flynt and Hillary Leverett, well known analysts of Iran, wrote some days ago here and here that Iran was not producing any medical isotopes domestically and that it imported all of its requirements. So did Geoffrey Forden writing at Jeffrey Lewis’ blog. But others write that Iran is now producing isotopes, although they do not give many details.

I asked an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) representative, but she told me: “we are not commenting at this time” on this issue.

What is the situation then?

I asked Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, about Iran’s activities in the field of medical isotopes production. Anticipating Western government officials’ charges of duplicity, I cross-checked his statements by reviewing a March 2010 article authored by Iranian scientists from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran in the journal Nuclear Technology, published by the American Nuclear Society in the United States [1]. The two accounts appear to match, and are as follows.

Iran now produces domestically two important medical isotopes with the TRR: technetium-99 and iodine-131. Recent media stories have emphasized production of technetium-99 so I focus on this one.

Technetium-99 is obtained from molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), perhaps the most important medical isotope in the world. 95% of the world’s Mo-99 demand is met by four countries that manufacture it (Canada, Belgium, South Africa and the Netherlands). These countries use highly enriched uranium (HEU at 90%) to produce Mo-99.

Up until 2007, Iran bought its Mo-99 on the world market, but it has now developed a way to produce it domestically, through irradiating Mo-98 in the TRR. This leads to the production of Mo-99, which is then used to produce technetium-99. Apparently Iran does not currently import Mo-99.

(As an aside, Iran is also producing other medical isotopes, notably isotopes of thallium and gallium, at its cyclotron facility near Tehran. This production process does not involve uranium however, so it is not part of the current nuclear “crisis” with the West).

The problem today is that Iran’s TRR is running out of fuel (which is made of LEU at 19.5%) and the production of isotopes is therefore at risk. The way to solve this problem is at the origin of the current crisis.

Several solutions are possible:

1) Iran could buy the fuel for the TRR on the world market.
2) Iran could receive fuel in exchange for most of its LEU stocks (this is the swap deal).
3) Iran could enrich its own LEU to 19.5% (currently it is only enriching at 3.5%) and produce the TRR fuel domestically.
4) Iran could stop producing its own isotopes and buy them on the world market (it would therefore not need fuel for the TRR to produce isotopes).

Any one of those solutions, if implemented, would provide Iran with medical isotopes and ensure its patients receive appropriate care, and therefore, solve the crisis. But they all have some problems, either real, or related to international politics:

1) Buying fuel on the market: Iran has actually said this would be its preferred solution, since it would allow it to keep its own LEU, rather than exchanging it for the fuel under a swap deal. As a member of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), Iran does have the right to purchase the fuel on the open market. However, as Scott Ritter has noted, “the United States and Europe have held any such sale hostage to Iran’s agreeing to suspend its indigenous uranium enrichment program”. Since Iran also has the right to enrich uranium according to the NPT, the obstacle here appears to lie in Western capitals, and this explains why they have preferred a swap deal in which Iran would give up its stocks of LEU.

2) Swap deal: From Iran’s perspective, one problem here is that by sending most of its LEU stocks to Russia and France, Tehran runs the risk of never receiving the fuel, or, at least, this would give Russia and the West an important bargaining chip in future negotiations. One can easily conceive how the West, in possession of Iran’s stocks, could lay out conditions for Iran to receive the fuel, such as asking for a full suspension of uranium in Iran. There are historical reasons for Tehran to be worried: in the 1970s, under the US-allied Shah, Iran invested more than $1 billion in Eurodif, a consortium enriching uranium in France. This was supposed to give Iran the right to obtain part of the fuel produced by the consortium. However, the 1979 Iranian revolution led France to renege, and Paris has since then refused to deliver Iran’s share of the fuel or to reimburse it with interest. The fact that nuclear hardliner Nicolas Sarkozy is now in power only adds to Iran’s fears that France could break the deal.

Partly because of such concerns, Tehran proposed that the swap could take place on Iranian soil and the LEU would leave Iran only when the fuel is delivered. As Siddharth Varadarajan put it, this would look something like this:

At a certain date, when French fabrication of the TRR fuel starts, the IAEA could take into its custody an equivalent amount of Iranian LEU and hold it, in escrow, inside Iran. When the TRR fuel is ready, the Iranian LEU can be loaded onto a plane, which would take off once the French fuel lands inside Iran. At the end of the day, the outcome for the U.S. from a simultaneous swap would be the same as from a sequential swap: Iranian LEU stocks would have been depleted.

But Obama, instead of jumping on the opportunity to close the deal, said he was disappointed with Iran, and called for sanctions--for a change.

3) Iran enriches LEU at 19.5%: In February 2010, Iran announced that it would enrich domestically its own uranium up to 19.5% in order to make the fuel rods itself. One question mark here is whether Iran has the technical expertise for doing this. It could always reconfigure its centrifuges to produce 19.5% instead of 3.5% uranium, but Tehran has never before attempted to produce fuel rods out of enriched uranium. Another potential problem is that Iran’s enrichment process is plagued by the fact that its domestic uranium is contaminated with molybdenum and this makes enrichment more difficult (the molybdenum here is a separate issue from the medical isotopes of molybdenum). Further, the prospect of Iran enriching its uranium to an even higher level does not please the West.

4) Importing isotopes: Iran’s announcement that it would attempt to reach the near 20% enrichment level therefore led US officials to accuse Tehran of threatening the lives of its patients, since, if Iran was more reasonable, it would simply buy the isotopes on the world market and that would settle the crisis. For instance, Glyn Davies, the US ambassador to the IAEA, asked: “Why is Tehran gambling with the health and lives of 850,000 Iranian cancer patients in pursuit of ever more dangerous nuclear technology”, a move he said was “callous and chilling”. Davies said that “to address the humanitarian needs of Iran’s people, we are prepared to facilitate Iran’s procurement of medical isotopes from third-country sources”, maintaining that the American proposal was a “faster, cheaper, and more responsible alternative than enriching to 20 percent”.

But one problem with importing isotopes is that world supply in the future may not be as reliable as it once was; and even if it remains reliable, Iran could still prefer to be self-sufficient and produce its own isotopes. Is the US right to say that it would be more responsible not to enrich uranium to 20%? One could certainly argue the case—but one could also argue, more strongly, that it would be more responsible for those states that have nuclear weapons to eliminate them, their obligation under the NPT, and convince Israel to eliminate its own nukes and join the NPT. That would certainly contribute to defusing the crisis.

In sum, the latest chapter in the Iranian nuclear dossier can be solved in more than one way. Although technicalities are important, we should nevertheless not forget that there would be no crisis if Western governments, and primarily the United States, had not created it in the first place.

Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland. He specializes in U.S. foreign policy and geopolitics. He can be reached at jmercille[at]gmail[dot]com.

Notes.

[1] Ghannadi Maragheh et al., “Industrial-scale production of 99mTc generators for clinical use based on zirconium molybdate gel”, Nuclear Technology Vol. 169, March 2010. See also Davarpanah et al., “Influence of drying conditions of zirconium molybdate gel on performance of 99mTc gel generator”, Applied Radiation and Isotopes Vol. 67, 2009.

>> Iran Is Paranoid and Israel Is Not (You're Kidding, Right?)

2010-03-15T18:44:00.000-07:00

by Rostam Pourzal
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Source: MRzine

"A country whose political culture is characterized by paranoia." What country would that be? Israel, which has claimed victim status through seven decades of vicious land grab? The United States, which has devastated Iraq pretending to look for imaginary weapons of mass destruction?

No, argues neoconservative Michael Eisenstadt, staff analyst at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy in a WINEP policy paper titled "The Missing Lever: Information Activities against Iran." Rather, according to him, unreasonable suspicion characterizes Iran, a nation that has for two hundred years not attacked another country, but is threatened daily by the far better armed Tel Aviv and Washington. He is able to misrepresent Tehran's defensive posture as "paranoid" because he denies Washington's widely reported subversion in Iran.

To make up for the illusionary past US inaction, Eisenstadt urges the Obama administration to adopt an "aggressive information policy . . . to ensure that the Iranian people can communicate with one another, keep abreast of developments inside their own country, and make their voices heard abroad." Decoded, his Cold War language means Iran's leadership should intentionally be made paranoid so it will bend to US and Israeli wishes. Casting typical pretension aside, the WINEP analyst does not claim that his proposed "strategic communications campaign" is good for Iranians.

The purpose, rather, is to keep "Tehran off balance," Eisenstadt explains. Iranian dissidents, in other words, are to be treated as US pawns, as are their counterparts in Cuba and other "enemy" states. Eisenstadt's colleague at WINEP, Patrick Clawson, similarly urged the Bush administration to use the Iranian terrorist group, MEK, as a "bargaining chip" to put pressure on Iran.

Eisenstadt laments, as have his neoconservative cohorts in other commentaries, that Washington makes inadequate use of what he calls "the informational instrument of national power . . . despite progress on this front since the September 11 attacks." Ironically, as a well known Israel partisan, Eisenstadt lends support to the common belief in Tehran that (a) Zionists exert inordinate influence over US foreign policy and (b) Zionists accomplish their objectives by manipulating information (the media). If the flow of information is a worthy cause, one may ask, shouldn't Eisenstadt first protest the torment that nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu has been subjected to in Israel?

Rostam Pourzal is a Washington, DC-based political analyst specializing in the politics of human rights and a member of CASMII International Steering Committee.

>> Vancouver >> New Sanctions Against Iran: New Diplomacy of War Mongering

2010-03-15T01:43:00.000-07:00

Featuring Video Talk
By Author Phil Wilayto
"Media Myths About Iran"

Speaker: Ali Yerevani
Participant in 1979 Iranian Revolution
Political Editor of the Fire This Time Newspaper

Wednesday April 7
6:30pm
Joe’s Café
in the Large North Hall
1150 Commercial Drive.
Vancouver, Canada

Organized By:
Mobilization Against War & Occupation (MAWO)
www.mawovancouver.org
AND
Iranian Community Against War (ICAW)
http://icaw.blogspot.com

>> An appeal to Antiwar Organizations & ...

2010-02-21T18:29:00.000-08:00

Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)Sunday, March 7, 2010
CASMII Press Release
March 2010

An appeal to anti-war organizations & activists to oppose the increasing threats against Iran
Around the world, anti-war activists are preparing for major protests this spring to oppose the continuing U.S.-led occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, a storm of developments is dramatically increasing tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In response, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) is issuing this appeal to the anti-war movements in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries to raise the demands of “No war, no sanctions, no internal interference in Iran!”

Iran is a country that hasn’t attacked a neighbor in more than 200 years. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran after the 1979 Revolution and, with support from the West, used chemical weapons against both civilians and combatants, the Islamic Republic did not retaliate in kind. And yet the U.S. government claims that Iran represents a serious threat to the Middle East region and the entire world. Without a shred of evidence, the U.S. charges that Iran's program to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes is just a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Never mentioned is the fact that, as a signatory to the U.N.'s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran's right to develop nuclear energy is enshrined in international law. Just a few months ago, the U.N's International Atomic Energy Chief, Mohammed ElBardai, the person responsible for monitoring compliance with that treaty, stated that “Nobody is sitting in Iran today developing nuclear weapons. Tehran doesn’t have an ongoing nuclear weapons program. But somehow, everyone in the West is talking about how Iran’s nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world.” (Interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Sept. 2009) Instead, warning of world disaster if Iran should succeed in its imaginary goal of obtaining nuclear arms, Washington argues that Iran must be forcefully brought to its knees, through a combination of increasingly crippling sanctions, taking advantage of Iran's internal divisions and preparing for a possible military attack.

Consider these recent developments:

• The U.S has been pressuring the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to impose a fourth and more severe round of sanctions against Iran. The only real holdout has been the People's Republic of China, which in January held the council's revolving presidency. On Feb. 1, however, the president's seat passed to France, which is nearly as hostile to Iran's nuclear program as is the U.S. (France itself, by the way, relies on nuclear power for 80 percent of its own energy needs.) The Security Council’s permanent members, including China and Russia, have never been a real barrier for the US. Not only has the council already approved three rounds of sanctions against Iran, but the Obama Administration is now talking of “bypassing” the U.N. in its latest push for sanctions. While sanctions are often promoted as an alternative to war, the world now knows that the sanctions imposed by the U.N. against Iraq during the first Persian Gulf War resulted in the deaths of up to 1.5 million Iraqis, a third of them children.

• Not content with just pressuring the U.N., the U.S. is pushing ahead with plans for more of its own unilateral sanctions. Congress is getting close to passing the Dodd-Shelby Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. Among other provisions, this bipartisan bill would “impose new sanctions on entities involved in exporting certain refined petroleum products to Iran or building Iran’s domestic refining capacity.” This provision starkly exposes the real U.S. goal: to economically cripple Iran in an attempt to so complicate life for the Iranian people that they might demand a “regime change.” In the past, the U.S. has argued that Iran doesn’t need to develop nuclear power because of its vast oil reserves, while conveniently omitting the fact that Iran doesn't have sufficient refinery capacity to meet its energy needs through oil alone. Targeting companies and countries that sell refined petroleum products to Iran, or that help Iran expand its own refining capacity, shows that the real goal has nothing to do with countering nuclear proliferation. (The U.S. even pressures European countries not to provide Iran with the means to develop wind energy!) Those who desire hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East can tolerate no independent regional powers, whether or not they present a threat to any other country. This reality was dramatically demonstrated in 1953, when the CIA toppled Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, for the “crime” of nationalizing Iran’s oil industry.

• Meanwhile, these threats of new sanctions are being accompanied by a military build-up in the Persian Gulf region. On Jan. 31, The Wall Street Journal reported that, in recent months, the U.S. and its Persian Gulf allies have stepped up their military defenses “in response to Iranian missile tests and Tehran's continued defiance of international efforts to curtail its nuclear program.” The moves have included “upgrades, new purchases of American-made Patriot antimissile batteries and the addition of advanced air- and missile-defense radars .…” The Journal reported that, although “some of the buildup has been going on for years ... the heightened profile of the moves comes as the Obama administration has toughened its rhetoric against Tehran.”

• And, according to a Feb. 1 Reuters report, “The United States has expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf to counter what it sees as Iran's growing missile threat .... The deployments include expanded land-based Patriot defensive missile installations in Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain, as well as Navy ships with missile defense systems in and around the Mediterranean, officials said. … The chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said last month the Pentagon must have military options ready to counter Iran should Obama call for them.”

• Finally, Iran's ongoing internal political crisis has apparently led some Western anti-war organizations and activists to be ambivalent about the need to stand against Western aggression against Iran. Regardless of how activists view Iran's internal situation, we all must agree that outside pressure and interference must be opposed. Recognizing this, Iran’s political opposition has urged Western countries to stay out of Iran's internal affairs. As presidential opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, has put it, “We are opposed to any types of sanctions against our nation. This is what living the Green Path means.” (Statement No. 13, Sept. 28, 2009) No truly progressive democracy activist in a country targeted by the U.S. would appeal to the U.S. for support.

The political positions taken by anti-war activists in the West can become a real factor in strategic decisions made by the U.S. government and its allies. Because of this, we are heartened to see that in the United States the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations and the ANSWER Coalition have added the demand of “No War or Sanctions Against Iran!” to their fliers promoting national anti-war protests on March 20. We call on all other coalitions, organizations and individual activists to do the same, and to further demand “No Outside Interference in Iran's Internal Affairs! Self-determination for the Iranian People!”

Regardless of differences in our political analyses and views, these demands should be acceptable to all who struggle for peace, justice and a better world for all.

This appeal has been initiated by the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)

This appeal has been initiated by the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)
For more information or to contact CASMII please visit: www.campaigniran.org

>> Media Myths about Iran

2010-02-20T00:04:00.000-08:00

By Phil Wilayto
March 18 at McMaster College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

To watch the video please visist:
http://www.mawovancouver.org/nowaroniran.html

>> Nuclear Decit: The Times and Iran

2010-02-12T00:45:00.000-08:00

January 14, 2010
Source: Media Lens

On December 14, The Times announced that it had obtained documents about Iran’s nuclear programme that revealed “a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator. This is the component of a nuclear weapon that triggers the explosion”. (Leading article, ‘Explosive Deceit; The exposure of Iran's programme to test an essential component of a nuclear weapon confirms a pattern of duplicity by a bellicose regime,’ The Times, December 14, 2009)

The Times had no doubts about the authenticity or significance of the document:

“The discovery is an indictment both of Iran's duplicity and of the West's complacency... regardless of divisions within the regime, Iran has sought a nuclear capability. Its efforts have been accelerated in the past decade. The prospect of an Iranian bomb is alarming.” (Ibid)

These expressions of certainty about the obvious credibility of the document suggested we were here reading, not journalism, but propaganda, as did the use of the future simple tense in the following passage: “a nuclear-armed Iran +will+ feel little constraint in supporting its terrorist proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, with money and materiel”. (our emphasis)

In asserting that Iran had “edged closer to acquiring a terrifying military capability,” The Times cited Winston Churchill:

“Anticipating the end of America's brief postwar nuclear monopoly, Churchill also declared: ‘We ought not to go jogging along improvident, incompetent, waiting for something to turn up, by which I mean waiting for something bad for us to turn up.’ Sixty years later, that is precisely what Western diplomacy is doing.” (Ibid)

In similar vein, a Times article by Catherine Philp on the same day featured two comments from Mark Fitzpatrick at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London:

"The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution." (Philp, ‘Secret document exposes Iran's nuclear trigger,’ The Times, December 14, 2009)

Fitzpatrick’s second, equally shameful comment was offered in concluding the piece:

"Is this the smoking gun? That's the question people should be asking. It looks like the smoking gun. This is smoking uranium." (Ibid)

Fitzpatrick, we learn from the IISS website, “came to IISS in 2005 after a distinguished 26-year career in the US Department of State”. (http://www.iiss.org/about-us/staffexpertise/list-experts-by-name/mark-fitzpatrick/)

The references to Churchill, a “casus belli” and a “smoking gun” instantly recall US-UK claims regarding the “serious and current”, and non-existent, “threat” posed by Iraq in 2002-2003. In September 2002, George Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said:

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Saddam Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
(http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/)

This was breathtakingly deceitful propaganda, but it was bolstered by claims that Iraq had sought to secretly smuggle uranium from African countries, notably Niger. In September 2002, The Times reported:

“Saddam Hussein's agents have been secretly shopping for uranium in the 13 African countries that possess it as a natural resource.” (Michael Evans, Michael Dynes, Catherine Philp, Richard Beeston and Alice Lagnado, ‘Uranium heads secret shopping list,’ The Times, September 25, 2002)

In March 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), dismissed the claims as fake:

“Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded ... that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have, therefore, concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded." (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/baradei-says-us-reports-were-false-599880.html)

Last month, an Inter Press Service (IPS) article by Gareth Porter recalled the role played by Philip Giraldi, a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, in exposing the Niger fraud:

“In 2005, Giraldi identified Michael Ledeen, the extreme right-wing former consultant to the National Security Council and the Pentagon, as an author of the fabricated letter purporting to show Iraqi interest in purchasing uranium from Niger. That letter was used by the George W. Bush administration to bolster its false case that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons programme.

“Giraldi also identified officials in the ‘Office of Special Plans’ who worked under Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith as having forged a letter purportedly written by Hussein's intelligence director, Tahir Jalail Habbush al-Tikriti, to Hussein himself referring to an Iraqi intelligence operation to arrange for an unidentified shipment from Niger.” (Porter, ‘U.S. Intelligence Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged,’ IPS, December 28, 2009; (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49833)

Giraldi, then, has an impressive track record in exposing forgeries. Porter described Giraldi’s response to The Times’ recent claims:

“U.S. intelligence has concluded that the document published recently by the Times of London, which purportedly describes an Iranian plan to do experiments on what the newspaper described as a ‘neutron initiator’ for an atomic weapon, is a fabrication, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.

“Philip Giraldi... told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.” (Ibid)

Giraldi's intelligence sources were sceptical of the source of the report, The Times. Giraldi commented:

"The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government." (Ibid)

Porter explained how the document itself has “a number of red flags suggesting possible or likely fraud”. For example, there is no confidentiality marking - highly unusual for a document on such a sensitive subject. The document also lacks any information identifying either the issuing office or the intended recipients. The inclusion of such information would make it far easier to expose a forgery.

The document's vagueness about the institutions involved in the planned tests for a neutron initiator appears to conflict with the detailed nature of the plans, which call for hiring eight individuals for different tasks for a specific numbers of hours.

An Original Document?

In a January 5 article, Porter reported that Times commentator Oliver Kamm had revealed (January 3) that the two-page Persian language document published by The Times was +not+ a photocopy of the original document but an expurgated and retyped version. And yet, Porter wrote, the Times had published what it “explicitly represented as a photocopy of a complete Persian language document”. On December 14, The Times provided a link to “Iran's nuclear trigger: document in full.” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece)

Kamm had written that the original document had "contained a lot of classified information" and was not published "because of the danger that it would alert Iranian authorities to the source of the leak". (http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/12/irans-nuclear-deceit-the-apologists-respond.html#comments)

The reason for such editing could not have been to remove "classified information", because, if the document were genuine, the Iranian government would of course already possess the information.

Porter also noted that Kamm’s revelation further damaged the credibility of the document which, having been both edited and retyped “could obviously have been doctored by adding material on a neutron initiator”. (Porter, ‘Iran: New Revelations Tear Holes in Nuclear Trigger Story,’ IPS, January 5, 2010; http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49889)

The Times reported that the neutron initiator document "was drawn up within the Centre for Preparedness at the Institute of Applied Physics", which it identified as "one of the organisation's 12 departments". (Catherine Philp, ‘Memo pinpoints mastermind of secret nuclear weapon research,’ The Times, December 14, 2009)

But the reference to a ‘Centre for Preparedness at the Institute of Applied Physics’ is an obvious misreading of a chart given to The Times by the intelligence agency but not published by The Times. The chart, (available at the website of the Institute for Science and International Security), shows two separate organisations relating to neutronics - a “Center for Preparedness” and an “Institute of Applied Physics” – under what the intelligence agency translated as the “Field for Expansion of Advance Technologies' Deployment.”

The Times also made great play of the document’s mention of uranium deuteride, or UD3. According to the Times:

"Critically, while other neutron sources have possible civilian uses, UD3 has only one application - to be the metaphorical match that lights a nuclear bomb." (Catherine Philp, ‘Compound whose sole purpose is to spark an explosion,’ The Times, December 14, 2009)

Writing in the Guardian, Norman Dombey, professor emeritus of theoretical physics at Sussex University, commented:

“That is a surprising statement. In fact the document's only mention of UD3 states that it would prefer not to use it but to replace uranium with titanium. That gives a clue about what the Iranians are doing.

“Titanium deuteride is used to store deuterium gas so that the gas can be generated when it is heated. It seems to me, therefore, that the function of UD3 is to generate deuterium gas so that it can be used in a plasma focus neutron generator. The neutron generator could then produce isotopes for use by other laboratories, hence the reference to market samples. UD3 is not known to be used as a neutron initiator in nuclear weapons: it was not used as an initiator in American, British or Soviet weapons when those weapons were developed.” (Dombey, ‘This is no smoking gun, nor Iranian bomb,’ The Guardian, December 22, 2009; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/no-iran-nuclear-bomb-trigger)

"The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was"

In turning to “independent experts” for their opinion on the document, The Times chose “physicist” David Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington:

"‘Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,’ said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. ‘This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.’” (Catherine Philp, ‘Secret document exposes Iran's nuclear trigger,’ The Times, December 14, 2009)

Albright was cited in a second article on the same day:

“‘But the document you obtained, which appears to take the work back towards explicit work on nuclear weapons, is very hard to reconcile with the US National Intelligence Estimate that weaponisation work has not restarted,’ said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security.” (Catherine Philp, ‘Memo pinpoints mastermind of secret nuclear weapon research,’ The Times, December 14, 2009)

In 2008, former chief UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, wrote about David Albright in an article entitled, ‘The nuclear expert who never was.’ Ritter commented:

“I have no objection to an academically based think tank capable of producing sound analysis about the myriad nuclear-based threats the world faces today. But David Albright has a track record of making half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources seem mainstream. He breathes false legitimacy into these factually challenged stories by cloaking himself in a résumé which is disingenuous in the extreme.

“Eventually, one must begin to question the motives of Albright and ISIS. No self-respecting think tank would allow itself to be used in such an egregious manner. The fact that ISIS is a creation of Albright himself, and as such operates as a mirror image of its founder and president, only underscores the concerns raised when an individual lacking in any demonstrable foundation of expertise has installed himself into the mainstream media in a manner that corrupts the public discourse and debate by propagating factually incorrect, illogical and misleading information.” (Ritter, ‘The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was,’ Truthdig, June 26, 2008; http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080626_the_nuclear_expert_who_never_was/)

The Times described Albright as a “physicist”. But Ritter commented in his article:

“I can’t say for certain when Albright became ‘Doctor’ Albright. A self-described ‘physicist,’ he allows the term to linger, as he does the title ‘former U.N. inspector,’ in order to create the impression that he possesses a certain gravitas. David Albright holds a master of science degree in physics from Indiana University and a master of science in mathematics from Wright State University. I imagine that this résumé permits him to assign himself the title +physicist+, but not in the Robert Oppenheimer/Edward Teller sense of the word.

“Whatever physics work Albright may or may not have done in his life, one thing is certain: He has never worked as a nuclear physicist on any program dedicated to the design and/or manufacture of nuclear weapons. He has never designed nuclear weapons and never conducted mathematical calculations in support of testing nuclear weapons, nor has he ever worked in a facility or with an organization dedicated to either.

"At best, Albright is an observer of things nuclear. But to associate his sub-par physics pedigree with genuine nuclear weapons-related work is, like his self-promotion as a ‘former U.N. weapons inspector,’ disingenuous in the extreme." (Ibid)

Ritter concluded:

“It is high time the mainstream media began dealing with David Albright for what he is (a third-rate reporter and analyst), and what he isn’t (a former U.N. weapons inspector, doctor, nuclear physicist or nuclear expert). It is time for David Albright, the accidental inspector, to exit stage right. Issues pertaining to nuclear weapons and their potential proliferation are simply too serious to be handled by amateurs and dilettantes.”

On January 6, Oliver Kamm also cited Albright in a curious blog on the Times website entitled ‘Iran’s Nuclear Initiator.’ The title should have read ‘Iran’s Alleged Nuclear Initiator.’ Kamm began his blog thus:

"David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security has posted a useful Q&A on the Iranian document that reveals, as The Times has reported, the regime's nuclear deceit." (http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2010/01/irans-nuclear-initiator.html)

Comments from Albright were sandwiched between this affirmation of the obvious authenticity of the document and a second, equally confident claim taken from a Times leader:

"A US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in December 2007 concluded that Iran was ‘less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005’. Documents obtained by The Times reveal that this assessment was worthless." (Ibid)

And yet, unmentioned by Kamm, Albright’s website - including the Q&A that was the subject of the blog and to which it linked - does +not+ support the claim that the document clearly exposes Iranian “nuclear deceit”. After all, the first answer to the first question in the ISIS Q&A begins: "If the document is genuine..." (http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/questions-and-answers-regarding-iranian-document/)

Kamm offered a mangled quote from Albright, inserting two parenthetical remarks:

"In discussions with officials from several governments prior to the publication of the Times article, ISIS found that these officials unanimously believed that the source [of the Iranian leak] was unlikely to take such a risk [i.e. present something that was not authentic]."

This suggested that ISIS agreed with The Times that the document was unlikely to have been forged. But on the ISIS website, these comments are sandwiched between three cautious sentences:

"If the document is forged or otherwise tampered with, the source risks a severe blow to its credibility in both the short and medium term. Likewise, if the documents had been forged and subsequently obtained by the Times’ source, the source’s credibility would still be considerably damaged. In discussions with officials from several governments prior to the publication of the Times article, ISIS found that these officials unanimously believed that the source was unlikely to take such a risk. But because of the seriousness of the implications of the document, thorough vetting of the document should continue." (http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/questions-and-answers-regarding-iranian-document/)

There was no “but” in Kamm‘s rendering of ISIS's position.

ISIS expressed further caution in the preceding paragraph:

“ISIS understood at the time it received the English translation of the Farsi document that the Times’ source removed headings from the original Farsi-language document and retyped the text in order to protect intelligence-sensitive information. The source made it clear that it had taken these steps to protect its sources and methods and made no attempt to conceal such steps from the Times. The Times’ subsequent publication of both the Farsi document and its translation was not opposed by the source. ISIS understood that the source provided the document to relevant governments and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a different form. Nevertheless, the lack of an original document obviously complicates public assessments of the authenticity of the document. It also calls for the IAEA and governments to share their analysis of this document and how it fits into the other information they possess about Iran’s nuclear efforts.” (Ibid)

The lack of an original document certainly “complicates” assessments of authenticity. On December 14, ISIS had linked to The Times website, commenting:

“The original document in Farsi and the English translation can be found here.” (http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/Neutron_Initiator_14Dec2009.pdf)

Postscript - A Very, Very, Very Long Way From A Bomb

On January 10, the former director-general of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam - a general who once commanded Israel's nuclear weapons force - claimed that Iran is a "very, very, very long way from building a nuclear capability”. (Uzi Mahnaimi, ‘Israeli general denies Iran nuclear threat,’ Sunday Times, January 10, 2010; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6982447.ece)

Eilam, who is thought to be informed by former colleagues on developments in Iran, argued that it will probably take Iran seven years to build a bomb. He described Israel’s official view as hysterical, commenting:

"The intelligence community are spreading frightening voices.”

He added that he believed the "defence establishment is sending out false alarms in order to grab a bigger budget,” while politicians have used Iran to distract attention from domestic problems.

Fortunately for the world, Rupert Murdoch, who owns both The Times and The Sunday Times, knows better. Last March, Murdoch declared:

“In Iran, we see a regime that backs Hezbollah and Hamas now on course to acquire a nuclear weapon.”
(http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.5018279/k.7184/AJC_Honors_Rupert_Murdoch.htm)

Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times, has commented:

“If you want to know what Rupert Murdoch really thinks read the editorials in the Sun and the New York Post because he is editor-in-chief of these papers. He doesn't regard himself as editor-in-chief of the Times and the Sunday Times but he does regard himself as someone who should have more influence on these papers than anyone else.”
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/23/sun.rupertmurdoch)

>> Never Mind the Facts, Let’s Have a War...

2010-01-12T23:49:00.000-08:00

by Finian Cunningham
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
source: Global research

A missile test-fired by Iran last week was reported on the BBC World Service as being “capable of striking Israel”.

The choice of words was not unusual. On previous occasions when Iran has test-fired a long-range rocket, the BBC and other western news media dutifully inform us that the said device is “capable of striking Israel”. The well-worn phrase is so reliably heard in these news bulletins that its use betrays a coded script. The not-too subliminal implications are that Iran is: a) a hostile state; b) doing something illegal in test-firing a long-range missile; and c) gearing up to deliver on its alleged threat to wipe out the state of Israel.

Within hours of these reports last week, the US government weighed in with the pious accusation that the test-firing “undermines Iran’s claims of peaceful intentions”.

This is a propaganda system at work: the choice of words and framework of logic designed to condition people into accepting certain options. In this case, the pre-determined option is a unilateral military strike on Iran either by the US or Israel. In that event, it will of course be reported by the BBC and other western media as a “pre-emptive” military measure to “prevent” Iran from attacking western interests in the region. Reported too, no doubt, will be the “collateral damage” of civilian casualties – unfortunate victims in an otherwise “just cause” to bring a “hardline regime” to abide by “international norms”. This is classic thought engineering that British political essayist George Orwell exposed so brilliantly – the official use of sanitised words to cover the sordid truth.

So let’s rewind and play back the news with some pertinent facts and context that are routinely omitted in western media reporting.

Iran has test-fired a long-range missile – within its sovereign borders. The US and its western allies carry out such weapons testing all the time, as is their sovereign right. One of the US’ allies, Israel, has a stockpile of nuclear weapons in contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This same ally has previously committed acts of aggression (war crimes) by launching air attacks on neighbouring countries. Israel, with overt approval from Washington, has repeatedly said that it is prepared to militarily strike Iran “soon”, The US itself has warned several times that it reserves the right to use a military option in its relations with Iran. The US is waging illegal wars in three of Iran’s neighbours: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. A dynamic of fear and distrust between Gulf countries is fuelling a regional arms race. This dynamic is being pushed by the US with, what should be, obvious self-serving interests (massive arms sales, geopolitical influence) that are instead disguised by its bogeyman illusion of Iran, which, unfortunately, Gulf states appear to buy into. All told, these facts actually do “undermine US claims of peaceful intentions”.

Here are some other facts that the western media curiously underplay. Iran is not at war with any country, although it is routinely accused in the western media, without supporting evidence, of covert subversion across the region. Iran is conducting a nuclear energy programme, which it has repeatedly said is for civilian power supply. After a decade of close monitoring by UN inspectors, which would never be permitted in its territory by the US or its western allies, the inspectors have reiterated that there is no evidence of Iran building a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, this conclusion does not restrain Washington and London in their dogged assertion that Tehran is building nuclear weapons (cue more arms sales).

Given these facts, the test-firing by Iran of a long-range missile is far from being a quasi-criminal act laden with hostile intentions. It is the action of a country that needs to show it can defend itself amid relentless provocations from proven and much more greatly armed aggressors, whose arsenal also includes a propaganda system that Nazi spinmeister Joseph Goebbels would have marvelled at.

>> UN Sanctions Hit Hospitals: Iran Running Out of Life-Saving Isotopes

2010-01-11T23:20:00.000-08:00

by Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Source: CASMII

The research reactor in Tehran is now used exclusively for isotope production.

Trade sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program are affecting treatment of people suffering from heart and kidney disease and various cancers. Some 850,000 patients are at risk because the country is running out of radioactive isotopes essential to radiotherapy.

Ruhollah Solook, 78, was dying before a donated kidney and complex radiotherapy saved his life. Recovering in an isolation room in Tehran's oldest hospital, he expressed his joy in a telephone interview. "They saved my life already. I hope they will be able to cure me entirely now. But Solook's treatment has become a race against time, as has that of 850,000 other Iranians suffering from heart and kidney disease and various cancers. Sometime after March 2010, the country will run out of technetium-99, a radioisotope crucial to the treatment of these diseases. Technetium-99 is currently produced locally in Iran.

"We recommend treatment with these products to hundreds of patients every month in our hospital alone," said Dr. Gholamreza Pourmand, Solook's physician. Technetium-99 is essential to radiotherapy, Pourmand said: "If we cannot help these people, some will die. It's as simple as that."

Rare and Precious

The impending shortage of technetium-99 is caused by the controversy surrounding the Iranian nuclear program. The sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, aimed at moving Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, are supposed to leave medical practice unaffected. In reality, however, Iran has become unable to procure a wide range of medical products. Body scanners cannot be imported from the US or the EU, since parts in these machines could also be useful to Iran's nuclear program. An embargo on medical isotopes was introduced in 2007, in defiance of the medical exception clause touted as part of the trade sanctions, Iranian leaders said.

Isotopes are a rare commodity produced at only five sites worldwide. One of these, the High Flux Reactor in the Dutch town of Petten, currently accounts for 30 to 40 percent of worldwide production, but it is scheduled for retirement soon. Apart from the UN sanctions, so many restrictions -- particularly American -- on trade with Iran exist, that in practice nobody is willing to supply Iran with medical isotopes any longer.

Out of dire necessity, Iran now uses its 41-year-old research reactor in Tehran -- originally constructed by the US -- exclusively for isotope production, a job which used to take only a day a week. However, the reactor's fuel, provided by Argentina in 1993, is quickly running out, the scientists said.

'We Will Make Our Own'

Iranian leaders, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, say that Iran might produce new fuel itself, which would prove a sensitive issue. Iran would need to enrich uranium up to 19.75 percent purity, which would not only be a gross violation of UN sanctions -- it would also bring the country one step closer to the militarization of its nuclear program.

"We would prefer to buy the fuel as quickly as possible," said Mohammad Ghannadi, vice-president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), sitting in his office in downtown Tehran. At his desk, Ghannadi had a bird's-eye view of the experimental nuclear facility, the only functional reactor in Iran. Two chimneys on the facility belt out white smoke. "We can enrich on our own," he said. "But we will run into technical difficulties. We also won't be ready in time to help our patients."

Iran's dire need for the special fuel has led the UN International Atomic Energy Agency to put forward an unusual proposal, which might, if successful, build trust between Iran and other nations.

According to this proposal, the US would upgrade Iran's old research reactor, and Russia and France would send the Persian nation 116 kilograms (256 pounds) of fuel. The IAEA, which already has the reactor under strict surveillance, would ensure it is not used for the production of nuclear armaments. In return, Iran would have to move most of its low-grade enriched uranium beyond its borders, leaving it with an insufficient stockpile for the production of weapons-grade uranium. Iran, however, has demanded firmer assurances that the promised fuel will actually be delivered. It also finds the time it would take to actually deliver the fuel -- a year, according to the Iranians -- too long.

"Every nuclear scientist understands that research reactors and medical isotopes have nothing to do with nuclear weapons," Ghannadi said. One of his own family members recovered from breast cancer only recently with the help of medical isotopes generated in his reactor. "We're talking about people here," he noted. "If somebody falls ill, you give them medicine. Give us the fuel, and then we will cure the people."

Desperate Phone Calls

It is not the first time Iran has fallen short of medical isotopes. When foreign imports came to an abrupt halt in 2007, the Iranians also tried to make their own. "But we were late," one of Ghannadi's assistants recalled. Patients went untreated for two months. "We got hundreds of phone calls a day. Government officials, hospitals and even patients called us asking for help," he said.

In Tehran's Shariati hospital, one of 120 medical facilities in Iran where nuclear technology is employed, patients are lined up waiting to use a decrepit German body scanner. In 2007, dozens of people would also wait here for treatment that didn't come, recalled Moshen Saghari, a nuclear science professor.

"When the West talks of human rights in Iran, it should not forget about our patients," said the doctor, a graduate of a prestigious American university. "The country that taught me everything I know is now preventing me from using that knowledge in Iran. Quite ironic."
The research reactor in Tehran is now used exclusively for isotope production.

>> New Revelations Tear Holes in Nuclear Trigger Story

2010-01-10T22:58:00.000-08:00

by Gareth Porter
Source: AntiWar.com
January 6, 2010

New revelations about two documents leaked to the Times of London to show that Iran is working on a "nuclear trigger" mechanism have further undermined the credibility of the document the newspaper had presented as evidence of a continuing Iranian nuclear weapons program.

A columnist for the Times has acknowledged that the two-page Persian language document published by the Times last month was not a photocopy of the original document but an expurgated and retyped version of the original.

A translation of a second Persian language document also published by the Times, moreover, contradicts the claim by the Times that it shows the "nuclear trigger" document was written within an organization run by an Iranian military scientist.

Former Central Intelligence Agency official Philip Giraldi has said U.S. intelligence judges the "nuclear trigger" document to be a forgery, as IPS reported last week. The IPS story also pointed out that the document lacked both security markings and identification of either the issuing organization or the recipient.

The new revelations point to additional reasons why intelligence analysts would have been suspicious of the "nuclear trigger" document.

On Dec. 14, the Times published what it explicitly represented as a photocopy of a complete Persian language document showing Iranian plans for testing a neutron initiator, a triggering device for a nuclear weapon, along with an English language translation.

But in response to a reader who noted the absence of crucial information from the document, including security markings, Oliver Kamm, an online columnist for the Times, admitted Jan. 3 that the Persian language document published by the Times was "a retyped version of the relevant parts of that original document."

Kamm wrote that the original document had "contained a lot of classified information" and was not published "because of the danger that it would alert Iranian authorities to the source of the leak."

In offering the explanation of the intelligence agency that leaked the document to the Times, Kamm was also damaging the credibility of the document. A document that had been both edited and retyped could obviously have been doctored by adding material on a neutron initiator.

The reason for such editing could not have been to excise "classified information," because, if the document were genuine, the Iranian government would already have the information.

Furthermore, there would have been ways of avoiding disclosure of the source of the leak that would not have required the release of an expurgated version of the document. The number of the copy of the document could have been blacked out, for example.

The Times claimed in a separate story that the "nuclear trigger" document was written within the military technology development organization run by Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

A second document, also published in Persian by the Times, shows Fakhrizadeh’s signature under the title, "Chief, Department of Development and Deployment of Advanced Technology," and includes a list of 12 "recipients" within that organization, and is dated the Persian equivalent of Dec. 29, 2005, on the Western calendar, according to an English translation obtained by IPS.

The Times reporter, Catherine Philp, wrote that the neutron initiator document "was drawn up within the Center for Preparedness at the Institute of Applied Physics," which she identifies as "one of the organization’s 12 departments."

But the reference to a "Center for Preparedness at the Institute of Applied Physics" is an obvious misreading of a chart given to the Times by the intelligence agency but not published by the Times.

The chart, which can be found on the Web site of the Institute for Science and International Security, shows what are clearly two separate organizations relating to neutronics – a "Center for Preparedness" and an "Institute of Applied Physics" – under what the intelligence agency translated as the "Field for Expansion of Advance Technologies’ Deployment."

But George Maschke, a Persian language expert and former U.S. military intelligence officer, provided IPS with a translation of the list of the 12 recipients on the cover page document showing that it includes a "Center for Preparedness and New Defense Technology" but not an "Institute of Applied Physics."

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports have referred to the Institute of Applied Physics as a stand-alone institution rather than part of Fakhrizadeh’s organization.

The English translation of the document shows that none of the other five centers and groups on the list of recipients is a plausible candidate to run a neutron-related experimentation program, either.

They include the chiefs of the Center for Explosives and Impact Technology, the Center for Manufacturing and Industrial Research, the Chemical and Metallurgical Groups of the Center for Advanced Materials Research and Technology, and the Center for New Aerospace Research and Design.

Contrary to the Times story, moreover, the other five recipients on the list of 12 are not heads of "departments" but deputies to the director for various cross-cutting themes: finance and budget, plans and programs, science, administration and human resources, and audits and legal affairs.

The absence of any organization with an obvious expertise in atomic energy indicates Fakhrizadeh’s Department of Development and Deployment of Advanced Technology is not the locus of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

The nuclear weapons programs of Israel, India, and Pakistan prior to testing of an atomic bomb were all located within their respective atomic energy commissions. That organizational pattern reflects the fact that scientific expertise in nuclear physics and the different stages through which uranium must pass before being converted into a weapon is located overwhelmingly in the national atomic commissions.

The Times story claimed a consensus among "Western intelligence agencies" that Fakhrizadeh’s "Advanced Technology Development and Deployment Department" has inherited the same components as were present in the "Physics Research Center" of the 1990s. It also asserts that the same components were present in the alleged nuclear weapons research program that the mysterious cache of intelligence documents now called the "alleged studies" documents portrayed as being under Fakhrizadeh’s control.

Those claims were taken from the chart given to the Times by the unidentified intelligence agency.

But the idea that Fakhrizadeh has been in charge of a covert nuclear weapons project can be traced directly to the fact that he helped procure or sought to procure dual-use items when he was head of the Physics Resource Center in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The items included vacuum equipment, magnets, a balancing machine, and a mass spectrometer, all of which might be used either in a nuclear program or for non-nuclear and non-military purposes.

The IAEA suggested in reports beginning in 2004 that Fakhrizadeh’s interest in these dual-use items indicated a possible role in Iran’s nuclear program

That same year someone concocted a collection of documents – later dubbed "the alleged studies" documents – showing a purported Iranian nuclear weapons project, based on the premise that Fakhrizadeh was its chief.

Iran insisted, however, that Fakhrizadeh had procured the technologies in question for nonmilitary uses by various components of the Imam Hussein University, where he was a lecturer.

And after reviewing documentation submitted by Iran and verifying some of its assertions by inspection on the spot, the IAEA concluded in its Feb. 22, 2008, report that Iran’s explanation for Fakhrizadeh’s role in obtaining the items had been truthful after all.

But instead of questioning the authenticity of the "alleged studies" documents, IAEA Deputy Director for Safeguards Olli Heinonen highlighted Fakhrizadeh’s role in Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons work in a briefing for member states just three days after the publication of that correction.

>> Hard choices for Iran in 2010

2010-01-08T20:34:00.000-08:00

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Dec 24, 2009
Source: Asia Times Online

What will 2010 bring to the stalemated United States-Iran relations? Continuing stalemate, a worsening relationship marked with greater sanctions and punitive measures slated for the Islamic Republic of Iran or, on the other hand, a gradual improvement and perhaps even some breakthrough on the nuclear front occupying the center stage in the current diplomacy between the two nations? Undoubtedly, these are important questions not only for the US and Iran, but also for Iran's troubled neighbors, above all Iraq and Afghanistan, the entire Middle East region and, indeed, the international community, all of which have a vested interest in issues of war and peace raised by Iran's nuclear standoff.

As we approach 2010, in light of the United Nations Security Council's decision to address the Iran nuclear issue in mid-January because of Tehran's rejection of various council resolutions demanding a suspension of its uranium-enrichment program, the prospect of tougher UN sanctions as well as other unilateral and multilateral (ie, European Union) sanctions now weighs heavy on the horizon. In this scenario, Russia and China would go along with more UN sanctions, just as they have in the past; more recently, they have also backed an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution that censured Iran over its second enrichment facility near Qom. What will the new UN sanctions consist of? No one at the UN secretariat in New York seems sure about the answer, and one source tells this author that it will definitely fall short of what hawkish US politicians and media pundits are pushing for, namely, sanctioning Iran's petroleum product imports.

According to the UN source, who wishes to remain anonymous, the concern is that if there are "too many teeth" in UN sanctions that would "hurt average Iranians", it "may backfire". This is a realistic concern, particularly since Iran has the solid backing of many UN member states that are involved in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). A NAM official in New York, also wishing to remain anonymous, tells this author that the 118-member NAM has "supported Iran in blind faith" by accepting Iran's declarations about its peaceful program and since Tehran is taking over the leadership of NAM in 2012, it is vitally important for it to keep its promises to the NAM community. "If Tehran goes nuclear despite its pledges to NAM, then the whole movement will lose face in the international community," said the source. Therefore, Tehran's politicians should be careful to avoid any future headache in terms of their standing in the NAM movement.

With India having for all purposes shed its NAM identity, member countries now look to Iran and a few other countries for global leadership. After all, didn't the late French philosopher, Michel Faucault, once describe the Iranian revolution as a "great refusal" that aimed to remove the shackle "that bears heavy on all of us"? The connection between Iran and NAM on the one hand and the nuclear standoff on the other raises important questions about Iran's foreign policy orientation that is geared less toward a regional role and more and more toward a global role, so much so that according to a veteran Iranian diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity, "Iran actually has no regional strategy, only a global strategy."

Astonishing as this may sound, there is a grain of truth about it, reflected in the small but profound fact that nowadays President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is seen spending more time touring Latin American capitals than those in Iran's vicinity. The Iranian diplomat relayed the story of how the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rejected the request by his commanders to allow Iran's use of chemical weapons in retaliation against the Iraqis who were using them on the Iran-Iraq war fronts, insisting that Iran operated by higher standards, even if the price was high. So why is Iran concentrating its efforts globally when it should be - logically speaking, based on its net contribution to the global economy - thinking regionally? The Iranian diplomat said it's due to the dynamism of Iran's historical revolution and the fact that Tehran has a long history of empire-building. However, the Iranian diplomat was quick to elaborate that Iran's intention was not join the "world empires" but rather to "transform the world toward a more just order". In other words, it is an inherent logic of the post-revolutionary state to resist the unjust global hierarchy and join other nations seeking to restructure it along "equitable lines". Those lines cover economic, political, military and geostrategic considerations, including nuclear arms races and disarmament. Concerning the latter, and contrary to all the Western and Israeli hype about Iran's "nuclear ambitions", which often cite proliferation pressures in Iran's neighborhood, a problem with such analyses is that they assume that Iran by definition has a regional strategy or that it feels pressured by Pakistan and Israel's nuclear-weapons moves.

For sure, the fact that two new nation-states, Pakistan and Israel, have bombs, while the ancient Iran does not, does not sit well with some Iranians, who argue that Iran requires a nuclear shield to defend against American and other Western threats posed by their military presence in Iran's vicinity. However, these arguments are not very compelling since (a) Iran feels very little pressure by Pakistani proliferation that is entirely consumed by fear of India and (b) Israel is "out of area" and focused on its Arab enemies, not Iran, as a result of which an Iranian attempt to acquire nuclear weapons would only engulf Iran deeper in the Arab-Israeli conflict, to the detriment of Iran's national interests. But, for a political system that has a generic globalist prism, the real importance of Iran's "nuclear ambition" rests on the multiple effects it has on the global nuclear arms race and the hitherto-absent disarmament, and this is precisely where a "quasi-nuclear" Iranian power can make genuine contributions to both the non-aligned movement in specific and global politics in general, by frustrating all the hype and expectations about a "nuclear-armed Iran", simply by using the leverage of this threat to highlight the importance of a concerted global effort toward disarmament.

This would be tantamount to a delicate balancing act whereby Iran would no longer act as a nation-state but a global leader at the front row of the Non-Aligned Movement, pressuring the nuclear-weapons states to take serious and drastic steps toward disarmament or face the prospect of more nuclear weapons states. In fulfilling this enormously difficult role, Iran would have to consistently fall short of giving the West what it desperately needs, a full, 100% guarantee about Iran's peaceful intentions. Yet, to provide this firm guarantee is tantamount to depriving Iran, as well as NAM, of key leverage in the area of total global disarmament.

Rather, the trick is to thread the "politics of borderlines" that would enable Iran to have a strong voice in the disarmament debates, both individually and as a NAM spokesman, in international forums, since Iran's status has now been elevated to "nuclear capable”. "Think of the beauty of it - if Iran disappoints all these talks about going nuclear and stops itself at the door and then knocks on the door of big powers and says 'shall we make a deal on disarmament or shall I join your club'?" said the NAM official cited above.

Assuming for a moment that Iran would follow this scenario, it may gain greater prestige and respect worldwide then by actually going full nuclear, in contrast to countries such as India that have acquired the bomb in large measure in the name of "regional status and prestige". In turn, this would require a disciplined approach to Iran's foreign policy orientation and the Foucauldian logic of state-making mentioned above, instead of falling prey to the traps of regional "power projection”. Simultaneously, Iran's national security concerns would have to be fully addressed in this noble pursuit that runs the risk of appearing "esoteric" and even "idealistic", to paraphrase the Iranian diplomat mentioned above. In other words, only a balanced approach that is organically connected to a "more powerful regional approach based on conventional power and diplomacy" in order to lessen Iran's national security concerns could work here, otherwise the global dimension would "sooner or later be sacrificed by the vacuum of regional consideration".

But, can it be that this is all an academic exercise and Iran is just another ordinary nation-state out to maximize its power through whatever means? This author has posed this question to a number of Iranian diplomats and foreign policy analysts and has received a mixed response, some going as far as dismissing any suggestion that Iran with its meager role in the global economy can be legitimately called a "global power".

Others have defended this adjective by pointing at Iran's "spheres of influence" and its active role in the Developing-8 group, in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, its observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and its NAM membership as evidence of the country's international dimension, with some pundits insisting that Iran is a "third world vanguard state". A vanguard in the disarmament movement that operates by raising the red flag of nuclear proliferation if the big powers fail to heed their nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments - this is, indeed, how Iran may increasingly come out in the near future; in other words, a proto-nuclear weapon state that is perpetually playing the "game changing" role of a proto-nuclear power based on its latent capability, destined to play a global leadership role.

Unfortunately, the proponents of a "grand bargain", such as US foreign policy analyst, Flynt Leverett, completely miss the point about Iran's international ambitions and orientations, proposing a near simultaneous resolution of all the outstanding issues between the US and Iran, without presenting any clue as to how Iran actually perceives itself in terms of world affairs and its long-term strategic outlook. Such serious omissions in studying Iran and its foreign behavior are quite clearly unhelpful in addressing the US-Iran stalemate. But once a proper reading of Iran's foreign policy and its global ambitions is managed by US policymakers, then the latter may soon discover a potentially rich area of convergence that is hitherto unknown, that is, the potential synergy between US President Barack Obama's disarmament vision and that of Iran.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.

>> Over Iran, enemies become friends

2010-01-08T20:28:00.000-08:00

By Grace Nasri
Dec 11, 2009
Source: Asia Times

As international attention has turned from the disputed June 12 Iranian presidential election and the regime's crackdown on opposition protesters to the negotiations surrounding Tehran's nuclear program, neo-conservatives in the United States, Iranian opposition leaders and some within the Iranian diaspora have begun employing the same tactics to achieve contradicting outcomes for Iran. Neo-cons are among many groups in the US that have sat by quietly - at best - through decades of human-rights abuses in Iran. Now, however, after Tehran's unprecedented move in coming to the negotiating table in October, the neo-cons have emerged as apparent advocates of Iranians in their domestic fight for human and civil rights. The actions and claimed motivations of the neo-cons, however, remain suspicious; but they are not unique to this group.

The leadership of the Iranian opposition has begun employing the same tactics as the neo-cons in their own effort to stall negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Meanwhile, some within the Iranian diaspora see themselves as sharing with the neo-cons a similar goal for Iran - not realizing their desired outcomes are in stark contrast. The history of relations between Iran and the US has been marked by interference from Washington in Iranian affairs - intervention that was generally in contrast to the Iranian struggle for human rights and democracy. Events such as the US Central Intelligence Agency overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammad

Mossadegh regime in 1953, the sending of chemical weapons to the Saddam Hussein regime to use against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and the Iran Contra Affair, in which the Ronald Reagan administration sold weapons to the Ruhollah Khomeini regime when it was killing en masse the Iranian opposition, are just a few examples of events when hardline conservatives in the US remained silent - at best - even when the most atrocious human-rights abuses were being committed against the Iranians. If history is any guide, behind the neo-cons' newfound concern for human-rights and democracy promotion in Iran lies an agenda not of behavior or even regime change, but system change in the Islamic Republic - a change that could potentially allow the West increased control over a strategically located and oil-rich country.

Human rights are becoming an instrument with which to push for military action or other confrontation under the guise of moral outrage. Preferring system change to regime change in Tehran, the neo-cons are raising an issue close to the heart of liberals - human rights - in a final attempt to persuade the Barack Obama administration to increase pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program. Iranian opposition leaders are employing the same tactics. Seeing the hardline Mahmud Ahmadinejad regime open to negotiations with Washington, the Iranian opposition's leadership fears further talks will give legitimacy to and solidify control of a regime many Iranians see as illegitimate. In an attempt to draw support for their leadership from other groups in Iran, and for their goal of regime - not system - change, opposition leaders have taken up a cause dear to the conservatives in Iran - Iran's nuclear rights - in a similar attempt to stall negotiations between Tehran and Washington. As such, opposition factions in both the US and Iran are working to thwart negotiations. When Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, initially agreed on October 1 to send up to 80% of Iran's low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia for reprocessing and then to France to convert the 20% LEU into fuel rods for medical use in Iran, the regime in Tehran did not come out and say Jalili had no authority to do so. Nor was Iran using this as a delaying tactic, as the US had set a short deadline for Iran to respond by October 23. Continued pressure neo-conservatives, however, compelled the Obama administration to hold strong to the original draft deal without compromise, while opposition leaders in Iran pressured Tehran to hold strong to its nuclear rights, that is, that Iran, as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is fully entitled to a civilian nuclear program.

With these two groups pressuring their corresponding regimes, there was no room for either Washington or Tehran to show any sign of giving in, ultimately leading to the current situation in which Ahmadinejad announced Iran would enrich its own uranium up to the 20% level. Many within the Iranian diaspora have the same goal as the neo-cons - system change - but for starkly opposing reasons. While the neo-con agenda ends in system change for the removal of the perceived threat to Israel and the US with the potential of control and exploitation, the Iranian diaspora seeks system change in the hopes that a new one will usher in improved human rights, democracy and enhanced freedoms. Yet, system or regime change in and of itself does not necessarily bring about more freedom or democracy, as the 1979 Islamic revolution has shown.

The Iranian diaspora, the neo-cons and Iranian opposition leaders, in their push for confrontation without knowing what will come in place of the current regime, ought to be careful of what they wish for.

Grace Nasri is an assistant editor at an international Iranian newspaper based in Washington, DC. She received her MA in international relations with a focus on the Middle East at New York University. Her articles have been published by the Digest on Middle East Studies, Iran Times International, Asia Times Online and openDemocracy.net.

>> Nuclear rights and human rights in Iran

2010-01-08T20:14:00.000-08:00

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
December 06, 2009
Source: Asia Times

There is now a direct linkage between the Iranian government's defense of the country's "inalienable nuclear rights" in the international arena and the country's contentious domestic politics that, in turn, has raised the international community's alarm over rights violations in Iran, reflected in a United Nations General Assembly resolution last month. In a vote of 74 in favor, 48 against and 59 abstentions, the assembly committee responsible for social, humanitarian and cultural affairs - known as the Third Committee - adopted a
resolution condemning human-rights violations in Iran, particularly those that have occurred since June's presidential election, when many opposition supporters were arrested and detained. Without doubt, the vote, backed by many of Iran's non-aligned friends who support Iran's nuclear rights, is a political setback for Tehran that cannot be ignored; rather, it requires concerted efforts by the government to push the arch of reconciliation, tolerance and respect for the constitutional rights of the political opposition. This is especially so, given fresh unrest in the capital, Tehran. Security forces on Tuesday clashed with thousands of university students protesting for a second day, as the top prosecutor warned of "no mercy toward anyone who acts against national security".

About 200 people were detained on Monday. The students have revitalized the June protests. Without serious efforts to polish Iran's image on the rights front, both the government's internal legitimacy as well as its international standing affecting its bargaining ability at the nuclear negotiations will suffer. One way to do this would be to declare an amnesty for all who have been imprisoned following the June election - which saw President Mahmud Ahmadinejad returned for a second term in a poll that the opposition claims was extensively rigged. The linkage between the two rights is inevitable since the government is mandated to pursue all rights in tandem and, therefore, its perceived laxity or disregard of one set of rights is bound to weaken its championing of another, ie, nuclear rights. Tehran insists that its uranium enrichment program, which it recently announced it is expanding, is its right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory.

There is widespread concern in the international community that Iran, despite its strong denials, is bent on producing nuclear weapons. This belief underpins the various sanctions that Iran has drawn, including from the United Nations and the United States, as well as calls that strong action - including military intervention - should be taken. In the wake of the June unrest, Ahmadinejad took some steps toward reaching out to discontented voters, including his choice of a moderate as vice president, subsequently demoted to chief of staff due to hardliners' opposition. He also nominated three women for cabinet posts, aimed at appeasing the urban female population, and he has made repeated public statements promising to represent all Iranians, even those who did not support him. This is not to mention the installation of a moderate cleric as the head of the judiciary, who has promised to respect citizens' rights and to disallow the political manipulation of the judicial branch. However, according to some Iran experts, Ahmadinejad could have made a more serious overture toward the political opposition by establishing a more inclusive cabinet, instead of relying on loyal faces, since he had raised such a hope by his post-election invitation from all sectors to "join hands" in forming his second administration. "The problem is the trade-off between national security and democracy," says a Tehran University political science professor who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"The government is absolutely convinced that foreign governments manipulated the protests and caused an unprecedented national security crisis still reverberating throughout the regime. So basically, the government is still in the recuperating mode and has prioritized national security over democracy, for now at least." Opposition leaders such as Mir Hossein Mousavi have been charged with failing to follow procedures for contesting elections results and crying foul without presenting compelling evidence to corroborate allegations of election fraud. (See Mousavi states his case Asia Times Online, June 19.) Even some leaders of the reformist group, the Islamic Iran Participation Front, including Saeed Hajjarian and Shahab Eldin Tabatabie, have openly distanced themselves from Mousavi, who was not a part of the reformist movement prior to his decision to run for presidency in late spring. According to Tabatabie, who was a key figure in Mousavi’s electoral race, "His associates kept saying that he would definitely win and this led them and Mr Mousavi to the delusion of victory." Elaheh Koolaee, another Tehran University political science professor, a former member of parliament and a member of the executive committee of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, has expressed similar criticism of the "green" reform movement.

"The government does not need to panic over every student demonstration, since the constitution permits legal assembly as long as it does not disturb civic peace - that was the case with the election protests that were called by Mr Mousavi," said the Tehran professor, who in principle supports the reformist movement. "That is why some lawmakers are adamant that Mr Mousavi broke the law and must be eventually brought before a court," said the professor, adding that the same standard should apply to any prison officials who abused prisoners. The sentiment about not panicking is shared by, among others, former president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who recently accused the government of intolerance and repression of dissent. His criticism has resonated with the regime's post-revolutionary identity as a mass-based republican system, albeit with a theocratic twist, based on regular and competitive elections.[1]

Rafsanjani has not criticized the "green" movement and its protests, which have portended a rising tendency toward a "velvet revolution" by, among others, targeting the authority of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. [2]

There may be flaws in each side's understanding of what went wrong and who is to blame, but the fact is that their cognitive hostility toward each other, fed by their perceptions and misperceptions of each side's intentions and objectives, continues to cause a widening gap between the government and its internal dissent. One thing is clear, however; namely, there are definite costs to Iran's national security interests due to the political rifts at home and the exploitation of those rifts by Iran's opponents who seek to deprive the country of its nuclear rights. This is starkly illustrated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to members of the Knesset (parliament's) Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday. "The use of the Internet and Twitter against the Iranian regime is a great thing," he said. "In past years, Iran was portrayed as an unpleasant regime, but today there is deep hatred on the part of part of the Iranian nation against the regime. It is trickling out and constitutes a very important resource for the state of Israel."

Notes
1. Iran on a tortuous path to reconciliation Asia Times Online, July 15, 2009.

2. Problems of 'Deliberative Democracy' in Iran: A Theoretical Survey by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Payvand's Iran News, August 5, 2001.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.

>> Sanctions, War and the Policy of Dual Containment

2009-12-20T06:21:00.000-08:00

By SASAN FAYAZMANESH
Source: CounterPunch

It is now nearly three decades since the Unites States adopted the policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq. While much has been written about the containment of Iraq, there has been very little in-depth analysis of this policy when it comes to Iran. In a book that is going to be released on March 31, 2008, entitled The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment (Routledge), I attempt to address this shortcoming by investigating when and why the US policy of containment of Iran came about, how it evolved, and where it stands today.[1] To the extent that Israel has been involved in US policy making, the study will also include the role that Israel has played in the containment of Iran. Also, since the fate of Iran has been inextricably linked to that of Iraq, occasionally the investigation will overlap with the containment of Iraq.

The policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq originated during the Carter Administration, but it was not until the Clinton Administration that the expression "dual containment" became popular. Despite its widespread use, the meaning of the expression is not crystal clear; different individuals have had different interpretations of "containment" of Iran and Iraq. For some, it has meant keeping the two countries militarily, economically, and politically in check. This was the case with Iraq between 1990-when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and United Nations sanctions were imposed on Iraq-and 2003-when the US invaded Iraq for the second time and occupied the country. In the case of Iraq, it was hoped initially that economic pressures through extensive United Nations sanctions, as well as some limited military actions, would create discontent and lead to "regime change." But since sanctions did not result in the overthrow of Hussein, Iraq was not exactly contained. The 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq showed that containment could go beyond sanctions and limited military operations; it could involve outright invasion of a country to achieve the desired goals.

To this day, the US military adventure in Iraq has not been successful, and the future of Iraq and its government remains uncertain. In this sense, some may argue that Iraq has not been contained. But a few might disagree with this conclusion. For these individuals Iraq has already been contained, since the country has been economically ruined, militarily shattered, and politically disintegrated. For decades to come, Iraq will not be able to rise from the ashes and challenge the US and Israel; and this, in the opinion of these individuals, is a successful containment. Such a view might appear to be too cynical to be held by anyone.

But, as I have argued in my book, the attitude of many US and Israeli officials toward the Iran-Iraq war indicates that this view did actually exist. Some American and Israeli officials wished to see Iran and Iraq destroy one another in a costly and protracted war. They helped to prolong the war and make sure that neither side had a decisive victory. The horrendous eight-year war, which resulted in a massive loss of human life and severe economic losses, was therefore viewed as a kind of containment. The same view of containment seems to exist today among many so-called neoconservatives who, after pushing for the Iraq invasion, show no remorse for the resulting carnage and advocate bombing Iran.

Whatever the interpretation of the dual containment of Iran and Iraq, one aspect of this policy has been to use war, or threats of war, to bring about the desired change. Another has been to rely on sanctions. US unilateral sanctions against Iran started shortly after the 1979 Revolution and continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In this period many of the imposed sanctions were intended to prevent Iran from winning the war against Hussein's Iraq. But it was also hoped that sanctions would bring about popular dissatisfaction in Iran and result in the overthrow of the new government. Such sanctions continued and became even more intensified after the Iran-Iraq war, particularly in the 1990s. Yet, even though these sanctions did harm the Iranian economy, they did not bring about the intended "regime change." The failure was attributed to the unilateral nature of these sanctions, and therefore multilateral sanctions, imposed through the United Nations, were sought. So far three such sanctions have been passed against Iran. Whether these sanctions will have the desired results and, eventually, would do to Iran what has been done to Iraq is hard to predict. But it is even harder to make any predictions about the future without knowing the past. It was in the spirit of documenting the history, in order to better understand the present and the future, that The United States and Iran Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment was written. An outline of the book is as follows.

The origin of the dual containment policy, as mentioned above, goes back to the Carter Administration. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that individuals within the Carter Administration, contrary to their denials, gave Hussein the green light to invade Iran and assisted him after the invasion. It was hoped that the war would not only lead to the resolution of the so-called hostage crisis, but that it might lead to the overthrow of the Iranian government and the restoration of the old order, where the Shah of Iran maintained a symbiotic relationship with the US and Israel. However, assisting Hussein in his war against Iran did not mean that the US was planning to establish a long-term relationship with him. Befriending Hussein was temporary; and while the US was helping the Iraqi government, the Israelis were selling arms to Iran with the full knowledge of the US. Indeed, the Carter Administration itself was considering the possibility of providing Iran with military spare parts as well. This was the beginning of the policy of dual containment, when the US, playing the role of a double agent, tried to make sure that neither side would achieve a decisive victory in the Iran-Iraq war.

The dual containment policy continued in the 1980s under the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations. But while the US assisted Hussein covertly during the Carter period, it did so overtly during the Reagan Administration, despite the official US policy of remaining neutral in the war. The support also became more vigorous. US officials tried to prevent Iran from winning the war against Hussein by providing him with intelligence, weapons, and extension of credit. They also established full diplomatic relations with Hussein's government, lifted trade sanctions against Iraq, and imposed new economic sanctions against Iran.

In addition, the Reagan Administration closed its eyes to the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the war, and, indeed, supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical compounds that had multiple uses, including making poison gas. Subsequently, with the Iranian military victories, the US entered the war against Iran directly to assure that Hussein was not defeated. With this direct US intervention, in 1988 Iran was forced to accept a humiliating ceasefire, especially after the USS Vincennes affair. In the end, the Reagan Administration had managed by means of indirect and direct war to defeat Iran for all practical purposes and contain it. Yet the policy of dual containment demanded that not only Iran but also Iraq be emasculated as a potential challenger. Therefore, while helping Hussein, the US also sold arms to Iran, mostly with the help of the Israelis, in what came to be known as the "Iran-Contra scandal." Furthermore, the US administration provided both Iran and Iraq with deliberately distorted or inaccurate intelligence data on the other's capabilities. More importantly, with the end of the Iran-Iraq war-and the emergence of Iraq militarily stronger at the end of the war than at the beginning-the US turned its attention toward containing Iraq. This was accomplished through manufactured sensational news and incidents, as well as a sudden US interest in the "gross violation of international law" by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The final incident was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait after the US gave confusing messages to Hussein. Following this invasion, the US tried to contain Iraq by means of a war, UN economic sanctions, and limited military operations.

The US policy of the dual containment cannot be understood without understanding the role that Israel has played in it. Following the 1979 Revolution in Iran, which ended a cozy and symbiotic relation between the Jewish state and the Shah, Israel started a campaign against the new Iranian government. However, once the Iran-Iraq war started, Israel began to sell arms to Iran. This was not because Israel was against the US policy of dual containment and the devastation of Iran and Iraq in a costly and protracted war, but because Israel wished to see Iraq contained before Iran. As a result, while the US was aiding Iraq, Israel was selling arms to Iran, and, eventually, got the US to sell arms to Iran in the infamous Iran-Contra scandal. When put in historical context the Iran-Contra affair does not appear as an aberration or isolated incident. It was part of the policy of helping to contain both countries. At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, however, Israel, like the US, largely concentrated on containing Iraq. In so doing, Israel contributed greatly to the propaganda campaign against Saddam Hussein before Iraq was invaded by the US. After the imposition of UN sanctions against Iraq in 1990 and the first US invasion of Iraq, Israel turned its attention toward containing Iran. With the help of its lobby groups in the US, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel concentrated on strengthening US economic sanctions against Iran. In this pursuit, Martin Indyk, the head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an AIPAC affiliate, became instrumental.

The meteoric rise of Martin Indyk to power in the Clinton Administration allowed him to carry on the policy of dual containment-which he took credit for devising-primarily by means of increasing sanctions against Iran. In this policy Iran was accused of three misbehaviors: sponsoring terrorism worldwide; opposing Middle East peace efforts; and developing weapons of mass destruction. Once formulated, these alleged misbehaviors became the rationale for maintaining and strengthening US sanctions against Iran. Indeed, during the Clinton Administration Israeli lobby groups became the major underwriters of US foreign policy toward Iran.

Besides Martin Indyk there were other individuals in the Clinton Administration who helped develop the Iran sanctions policy. One such individual was Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who had a particular animosity toward Iran since his hostage negotiation days. This animosity came in handy for Indyk and the Israeli lobby groups in implementing their sanctions policy against Iran. But this was not all; there was also a competition between a predominantly Republican Congress and a Democratic Administration as to which was more hostile to Iran and thus faithful to Israel. In this competition, the role of Senator Alfonse D'Amato in trying to pass sanctions acts against Iran is examined in my book.

One major act, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA)-which imposed secondary sanctions on foreign companies that would make new investments of at least $40 million in Iran-becomes a focus of my study. With the passage of ILSA, however, the US sanctions policy started to fall apart. Not only did many countries around the world defy it, the US corporate lobbies, too, began to organize to oppose various Israeli lobby groups. In this regard, I examine the role of some heavyweights that the corporate lobby brought forth to oppose the sanctions-such as two former national security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft-the formation of an umbrella lobby organization called USA*ENGAGE, various individuals or lobbyist groups working with the Iranian government who started to organize, and a number of US Congressmen who were lobbied by the corporations to oppose the passage of further unilateral sanctions against Iran. All this, as well as the appointment of a new Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who tilted more toward the corporate lobby, resulted in an incoherent and inconsistent US policy toward Iran at the end of the Clinton era, a policy that tried to reconcile the irreconcilable aims and interests of Israel and the US corporations. It is worth noting that during the Clinton Administration the Mujahedin-e-Khalq-e-Iran (MEK), an Iranian exile group, became a convenient tool in the hands of strange bedfellows-namely Iraq, the US, and Israel-in a campaign to overthrow the Iranian government. Even though in 1997, as a result of some shifts in US foreign policy, the US State Department put MEK officially on the list of terrorist organizations, the group operates relatively freely in the US to this day.

The end of the Clinton era ushered in a new phase in the US policy of containment of Iran. The 2000 US presidential election brought uncertainty concerning the future policies of the Bush Administration toward the Middle East in general and Iran in particular. The fact that the new administration was top heavy with former oil executives added to this uncertainty. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Israel correctly perceived that the policy would be made more by the neoconservative forces within the new administration-such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle-than anyone else, including those in the State Department. Wolfowitz and Perle-who were on the Board of Advisors of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an offshoot of AIPAC-had advocated, at least since 1992, the use of military force against Iraq. But Israel was more interested in containing Iran rather than Iraq and was hoping that the neoconservative forces, particularly those within the administration, would achieve that goal. The events of September 11, 2001 played a determining role in both containments.

The neoconservative forces got what they had wished for when it came to invading Iraq. But as far as Iran was concerned, the initial reaction of the US State Department after 9/11 was to start a courtship dance with Iran, a dance that Israel, its lobby groups, and its neoconservative allies, in and out of the administration, watched with a great deal of trepidation. A concerted campaign was waged by Israeli officials, including Binyamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, to end the dance. The US was warned by these officials not to cozy up to Iran. Such warnings, as well as the puzzling Karine-A affair, managed to end the US State Department's attempt to approach Iran. The death of the rapprochement was made official by President Bush in his "axis of evil" speech on January 29, 2002, a speech in which Iran was accused, along with Iraq and North Korea, of aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and exporting terror. In the end, Israel, its various lobby groups, and its neoconservative allies changed the direction of US policy toward Iran as conceived by the US State Department.

A case had to be made as to why Iran should be targeted. Israel put forward a list of allegations against Iran that included everything from Iran's involvement in the Karine-A affair to pursuing missiles capable of striking Israel with chemical and biological weapons, dispatching its Revolutionary Guards to foment anti-Israel activity in Lebanon, and being on schedule to develop a nuclear bomb by 2005. Yet even though Israel had made its case for targeting Iran, and wished to see Iran attacked before Iraq, it had to settle for second-best: wait until after the invasion of Iraq to contain Iran. Thus, in an interview with The Times (London) on November 5, 2002, Sharon stated that he considered Iran to be the "centre of world terror," and "that as soon as an Iraq conflict is concluded, he will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list."

How was Iran pushed to the top of the US's "to do" list? As in the case of Iraq, Iran's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction became the rallying point for targeting the country. The first step in the process came in late summer 2002, when, in a dramatic press conference, a representative of MEK revealed the construction of a uranium enrichment facility and a heavy water production plant in Iran, neither of which had been reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The actual source of the revelation appears to have been Israel, which passed the information to MEK. Once these constructions were disclosed, the US and Israel started to build a case for reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council and for the imposition of sanctions. How the case proceeded is narrated in my book. Before that, however, the origin of Iran's nuclear program is discussed. It is argued that the US and Israel had no problems with Iran's nuclear program when the Shah of Iran was in power. Indeed, the US helped the Shah with nuclear technology and encouraged him to build nuclear power plants.

Subsequently, the Shah signed an agreement to purchase two reactors from Germany to be installed at Bushehr. The construction of these power plants began in 1975, but after the 1979 Iranian Revolution the Germans left the country without completing the project. In 1995 Iran signed a formal agreement with Russia to finish the Bushehr reactor. But Russia continuously postponed the completion of the reactor and delivery of nuclear fuel. Given Russia's foot-dragging, as well as the numerous US sanctions imposed on Iran, it appears that Iran had engaged in a number of nuclear-related activities not reported to the IAEA, including building the two structures that were disclosed by MEK. Even though, technically speaking, the construction of these facilities did not violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)-to which Iran is a signatory-it provided the perfect excuse to the US and Israel to argue that Iran was clandestinely developing nuclear weapons. Such claims, however, were not new. They were heard as early as 1984, when a neoconservative argued that Iran might be only two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Following this claim there were numerous others concerning the impending development of nuclear weapons by Iran. Indeed, in the 1990s a number of sources associated with Israel claimed that Iran had already purchased three or four nuclear warheads from the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. That allegation and subsequent assertions concerning Iran developing nuclear arsenals all proved to be false. But the guessing game continued well into the late 1990s and early 2000s. With each day passing and no nuclear weapons or even evidence of development of such weapons showing up, the ever-changing prediction of doomsday appeared to attract little attention until the revelation of the two unreported nuclear-related facilities in Iran. Once this revelation was made, Israel could push for Iran to be at the top of the US's "to do" list.

The road was being paved to report Iran to the Security Council. The 2003 IAEA report mentioned certain failures by Iran to disclose information. It also encouraged Iran to sign the "Additional Protocol" to the IAEA Safeguards Agreements. But the report did not show any smoking gun and, therefore, was not the report that the US and Israel needed to contain Iran. Nevertheless, the report left a number of open questions that made the US and Israel hopeful about taking Iran before the Security Council. For example, why was Iran developing a facility to produce heavy water, building a uranium enrichment facility, manufacturing uranium metal, hesitant to allow IAEA inspectors visit an electric workshop and take environmental samples?

The last question, in particular, made the US and Israel contend that Iran was hiding something, and this could be an indication of a nuclear weapons program. In the end, this allegation proved to be incorrect. However, such allegations continued to be made until Iran was reported to the Security Council. In addition to making false claims, the US and Israel intensified their psychological warfare against Iran, threatening a preemptive military strike on her nuclear facilities. Such threats made the Europeans, particularly France, Britain, and Germany (EU 3), worry and start negotiating with Iran in October of 2003 to sign the "Additional Protocol," stop nuclear enrichment, and provide full disclosure of its nuclear program. The Iranian government capitulated and signed an agreement in December 2003, even though the Iranian parliament refused to ratify the "Additional Protocol." The US and Israel, however, continued their pressure on Iran by making false claims and portraying Iran as a threat to Israel and the world at large. Pressure mounted in summer of 2004 to report Iran to the Security Council. The EU 3 made a last-ditch effort to stop Iran's enrichment activities. The result was the November 2004 Paris Agreement, which asked Iran to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities voluntarily and temporarily in exchange for some vague and, for all practical purposes, undeliverable economic promises. The US gave this agreement guarded approval but made it clear that it was a kind of "good-cop, bad-cop arrangement," where the Europeans and Americans were working together but playing different roles.

The US and Israel intensified their threats of a preemptive strike against Iran in 2005. By now the argument had changed from not allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons to not even tolerating Iran having knowledge of nuclear enrichment. At the same time there were reports that the US might support EU negotiations with Iran and accept the so-called carrot and stick approach. Even though this was no more than the bad cop joining the good cop, Israel and its lobby groups were opposed to any shift in US policy and waged a campaign against it. In Iran, too, there was opposition to the Paris Agreement, especially after the US gave the agreement its tacit blessing. The opposition became stronger with the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of Iran, a man who was demonized by a massive US and Israeli disinformation campaign as soon as he took office.

After protesting that the Paris Agreement was turning a voluntary and temporary halt in uranium enrichment activities into a permanent freeze and that the EU had not kept its part of the bargain, Iran ended the agreement. The campaign to report Iran to the Security Council by the IAEA gained momentum and a resolution to this effect was passed; however, the question of the timing of when the matter would be referred to the Security Council was left open. A number of events speeded up the process of referral. One such event was Ahmadinejad quoting Ayatollah Khomeini as saying that the occupying regime of Jerusalem must disappear from the page of time. The statement was translated in both Israel and the US as "wipe Israel off the map," and was used in a massive campaign to portray Iran as Nazi Germany and Ahmadinejad as another Hitler poised to commit a holocaust. Another was the claim by American intelligence officials that they had discovered a stolen laptop showing Iran's attempt to design a nuclear warhead. The contents of the laptop were shown to IAEA inspectors, but, IAEA officials doubted the authenticity of the material, and believed that much of the intelligence provided by the US and other intelligence services had proved to be wrong.

Numerous assertions, even though false, made any compromise solution impossible. In the end, a relentless effort by the US and Israel to bring Iran before the Security Council and impose UN sanctions against her paid off in early 2006. The IAEA was forced to issue an early update brief followed by a full report on Iran's compliance with the earlier resolution. But even before the full report was issued, the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany reached an agreement, and soon afterwards the US obtained the necessary vote to refer Iran to the Security Council. Iran, in turn, ended all voluntary cooperation with the IAEA.

Accusations and threats by US and Israel continued against Iran even after Iran's referral to the Security Council. As the US allocated more funds to bringing "democracy" to Iran, AIPAC mounted another "largest ever policy conference" aimed at bringing about the harshest possible sanctions against Iran. Frantic efforts by those uneasy about imposing UN sanctions, including the Director General of the IAEA, failed as most US policy makers followed the lead of Israel and its allies in the US. The Security Council issued in late March 2006 a draft statement asking Iran to halt all enrichment activities, and ordered the Director General of the IAEA to report in 30 days on Iran's compliance. This was not exactly the harsh resolution that the US and Israel were hoping for. The US pushed for the passage of a UN Chapter 7 resolution against Iran that could result in the use of military force against her. In this effort, parallels were continuously drawn between Iran and Nazi Germany and Ahmadinejad and Hitler. Iran's alleged hidden nuclear programs were reported and talks of pre-emptive military attacks by either the US, Israel, or both were heard. In this atmosphere even the most outrageous tales would become credible news. One such story was an alleged new law in Iran that would force the Iranian Jewish population to wear yellow insignia. Even though the "news" proved to be a complete fabrication, it for some time and enabled many political figures around the world, particularly Americans, to condemn and demonize Iran. The US, however, still had to get the reluctant Russians and Chinese on board to impose sanctions against Iran.

A new strategy was adopted: the US would join the EU 3 in negotiating with Iran if Iran halted all enrichment activities. The Bush Administration knew full well that this offer would not be accepted by Iran and was, indeed, worried about a possible positive response by Iran. The US gambit paid off, and the "carrot and stick" package offered was ultimately rejected by Iran. The US wielded more sticks, including financial sanctions to paralyze the Iranian banking system. Security Council Resolution 1696 was passed in July 2006, demanding that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and that the Director General of the IAEA give a report by the end of August 2006 on Iran's compliance. If Iran did not comply, according to Resolution 1696, UN sanctions would be imposed. The stage was set for the imposition of the first set of UN sanctions against Iran.

The August 2006 IAEA report indicated that Iran was not complying with UN Resolution 1696.

The report was followed by Iran's adversaries calling for immediate imposition of sanctions. Any compromise offered, including a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran, was ruled out by the US and Israel. The US further tightened its financial sanctions against Iran, and Israel raised, once again, the specter of Iran becoming another Nazi Germany determined to commit another holocaust. The campaign to impose UN sanctions against Iran was beginning to bear fruit. Draft resolutions for such sanctions began to circulate in November 2006. War drums beat intensely and there was again talk of a possible military strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities. US pressure mounted for adopting a sanction resolution. The push resulted in Security Council Resolution 1737 in December of 2006, the first UN sanction resolution against Iran. The resolution demanded that Iran halt all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and suspend work on all heavy water-related projects. It asked all states to take the necessary measures to prevent the supply, sale, or transfer of all items, materials, equipment, goods, and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment related, reprocessing, or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. It also asked all states to exercise vigilance regarding the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals engaged in Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. In addition, the resolution provided a list of certain Iranians and asked all states to freeze their funds, other financial assets, and economic resources.

Moreover, the resolution established a sanctions committee to monitor Iran's compliance with the resolution and collect information from countries about their trade with Iran. Finally, the resolution asked the Director General of the IAEA to provide a report in 60 days on Iran's compliance. Resolution 1737 was the crown jewel of the US-Israeli policy of containment of Iran.

More than a quarter of a century of US unilateral sanctions against Iran, many underwritten by forces close to Israel, had not contained Iran. Even though this resolution was too weak to contain Iran, it was hoped that future resolutions would do the job. Iran shrugged off the sanctions and reduced its cooperation with the IAEA. The US levied more accusations against Iran and engaged in more provocative acts. Israel continued to call Iran an existential threat. In early 2007 there were fears that a war with Iran might become inevitable. In the end, however, the threats of war were used to set the stage for the second round of UN sanctions against Iran.

After an IAEA report indicating Iran's non-compliance with Resolution 1737, the US and Israel pushed for another resolution. The result was Security Council Resolution 1747 in March 2007, which extended previous sanctions. The resolution called upon all states to exercise vigilance and restraint regarding the entry into or transit through their territories of certain Iranians engaged in or associated with Iran's proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. In addition, it provided another list of Iranian entities involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and entities whose funds or assets shall be frozen. Among these was one of the largest banks in Iran. Resolution 1747 also stated that Iran shall not supply, sell, or transfer any arms or related materiel.

Furthermore, it called upon all states to exercise vigilance and restraint in the supply, sale, or transfer of any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or missile systems. Finally, the resolution asked all states and international financial institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, and concessional loans to the Iranian government. As in the previous case, the resolution asked the Director General of the IAEA to prepare a report within 60 days as to whether Iran had complied with the demands of Resolutions 1737 and 1747. Iranian officials were defiant and shrugged off the effect of the resolutions. Yet Resolutions 1737 and 1747 put great pressure on Iran economically and politically, setting the stage for further, and harsher, resolutions to follow.

The next Security Council sanction resolution against Iran did not materialize until nearly a year after Resolution 1747. On March 3, 2008, the Security Council passed its third sanction resolution against Iran, Resolution 1803.[2] The new resolution tightens two previously passed sanction acts by 1) asking states to exercise "vigilance and restraint" against a new set of Iranian nationals purportedly involved in "proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems"; 2) extending the freezing of the financial assets of persons or entities allegedly "supporting" the above mentioned activities; 3) calling upon states to "exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, in particular with Bank Melli and Bank Saderat"; and 4) continuing to block the import and export of allegedly "sensitive nuclear material and equipment."

Resolution 1803 also added a new provision to the previous sanction acts: it called upon states to "inspect cargo to and from Iran of aircraft and vessels owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line, provided 'reasonable grounds' existed to believe that the aircraft or vessel was transporting prohibited goods." This new provision is one of the most dangerous provisions in all the resolutions that have been passed so far by the Security Council against Iran. The term "Reasonable grounds" is ambiguous. What is reasonable or unreasonable is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, theoretically, any adversary of Iran can now stop an Iranian aircraft or vessel to inspect it because it is "believed" there is "reasonable grounds" for such an inspection. If the Iranian vessel refuses inspection, all hell could break loose.

The new provision was probably one of the reasons why four non-permanent members of the Security Council, Indonesia, Libya, South Africa and Vietnam, tried in vain to stop, revise or at least slow down the passage of Resolution 1803. At the end, however, under pressure from the US and its allies, three of the four countries caved in and went along with the resolution. The fourth, Indonesia, abstained. US and its allies, who wanted unanimous vote against Iran in the Security Council, and wished for a much harsher resolution, declared victory nevertheless. But this was not enough. A day after, US, France and Britain tried to introduce another resolution against Iran at the meeting of the IAEA. This time, however, Russia, China and a number of countries belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) stopped the effort and argued that given the action by the Security Council a day earlier, a new resolution against Iran would be superfluous.

All this happened against the backdrop of two major reports undermining the necessity of passing a third sanction resolution against Iran. The first was the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report, entitled "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities."[3] The "Key Judgments" portion of the report that was made public stated:
We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.

The report, of course, claimed that Iran had exerted "considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such [nuclear] weapons." But the assertion that such efforts had been halted in 2003 not only removed the rationale for the US and Israel to wage a military campaign against Iran but it apparently slowed down the attempt to pass a third sanction act through the Security Council. Indeed, the resolution which passed recently was supposed to have been passed in early summer of 2007. But almost immediately after the conclusion of the NIE report became public the US government, as well as its allies, belittled or even dismissed its value, and, in so doing, made the passage of a new sanction resolution against Iran appear to be urgent.

The second report that undermined the urgency of the 3rd round of UN sanctions was the IAEA report.[4] The summary of the report stated that The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan, with the exception of the alleged studies. Iran has provided access to individuals in response to the Agency's requests. Although direct access has not been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been provided in writing to some of the Agency's questions.

The summary also stated that the "Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings." But, the summary also added, the "one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran's nuclear programme is the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle." According to the report, the documents related the allegations were only shown to Iran in February, as late as just a few days before the IAEA report. Iran the report states, "maintained that these allegations are baseless and that the data have been fabricated." The Agency, the report stated, is examining the allegations and the statements provided by Iran.
The allegations apparently refer to the content of the "stolen laptop" that the US had in its possession and supposedly showed Iran's plans to build a nuclear warhead.[5] The content of this mysterious laptop had resurfaced a number of times before and its authenticity questioned by a number of sources, including IAEA's own experts. For example, on February 22, 2007, the Guardian reported that, according to "informed sources" at the IAEA, "most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors." The report quoted an IAEA "diplomat" as saying: "Most of it has turned out to be incorrect. . . They gave us a paper with a list of sites.

[The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities." The report then referred to the mysterious "stolen laptop" that the US had in its possession and supposedly showed Iran's "plans to build a nuclear warhead." As the report pointed out, in "July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran." But the report pointed out that IAEA officials doubted the authenticity of the laptop. "First of all," the Guardian quoted one such official as saying, "if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away [Moreover, the] data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer." A similar report appeared on February 25, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times under the heading "U.N. Calls U.S. Data on Iran's Nuclear Aims Unreliable." The report quoted a "senior diplomat at the IAEA" as saying: "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us [by way of the CIA and other Western spy services] has proved to be wrong." This report, too, pointed out that some IAEA officials doubted the authenticity of the laptop story.

Had IAEA officials changed their minds? Was there more to this report than had been divulged before? Or was the intense pressure exerted on the IAEA by the US and its allies, including repeated calls by the US and Israel to remove the IAEA Director, Dr. ElBaradei, resulted in the IAEA changing its position about the authenticity of the allegations? Given the number of false claims made by the US and its allies-which I have documented in my book-and given the intense pressure that the IAEA has been under to produce results agreeable to Iran's adversaries, one cannot help but to suspect that story of the mysterious laptop might be another fabrication.

Whatever the nature of the US allegations, one thing is certain: even if the threat of military attack against Iran by the US, Israel or both has subsided for the time being, sanctioning of Iran has not. US unilateral sanctions, as well UN multilateral sanctions, are being intensified. Iran is clearly feeling the pain of numerous sanctions. It is, however, uncertain whether this pain is sufficient for Iran to relinquish its "inalienable right" to "develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination," as guaranteed under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The fact that after three rounds of UN sanctions Iran is still cooperating with the IAEA shows that Iran is bending under the pressure. But even if Iran does forfeit its right and capitulates, it is uncertain whether the US and Israel would stop their attempts to contain Iran. If containment means the destruction of any country that stands in the way of US and Israel, the fate of Iran might be similar to that of Iraq; ultimately an excuse will be found to do to Iran what was done to Iraq. The advocates of the dual containment policy, particularly those who had argued that Iran should be contained before Iraq, have been relentless. They will not stop until they achieve the ultimate containment of Iran.

Sasan Fayazmanesh is chair of the Department of Economics at California State University, Fresno. He can be reached at: sasan.fayazmanesh@gmail.com

Notes:
[1] This essay is based on the Introduction of my book: http://www.routledgemiddleeaststudies.com/books/The-United-States-and-Iran-isbn9780415773966
[2] The text of Resolution 1803 is available at: http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/sc9268.doc.htm
[3] The text of the report is available at: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
[4] The text of the report is available at: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-4.pdf
[5] For more details about the "laptop" see my book, The United States and Iran, and a recent article by Gareth Porter, "Iran Nuke Laptop Data Came from Terror Group," February 29, 2008: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41416.

>>> The US, Israel and Iran: An Interview with Sasan Fayazmanesh

2009-12-07T01:01:00.000-08:00

By Mehran Ghassemi, Iranian journalist, Roozna newspaper, Tehran
03/19/07

Q. How do you evaluate the relationship between the US and Israel at this time? What is this relation based on?

A: Allow me to say beforehand that I am currently writing a book-tentatively entitled The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment- which chronicles the US, Israel and Iran relation since 1979. The book-which is to be completed by the end of summer-examines, in a comprehensive manner, the evolution of the US policy of "dual containment" of Iran and Iraq, particularly as it pertains to Iran. I believe, without such a comprehensive analysis, it is difficult to give meaningful and satisfactory answers to many questions that I am often asked about the current entanglement between Iran on the one side and the US and Israel on the other. With this caveat, I would answer your question by saying that under no previous administration has the relation between US and Israel been as close as under the current, Bush Administration. Why this is the case and what the relation is based on requires the kind of comprehensive analysis that I was referring to above. But let me just say that, as it is well known, the Middle East Policy of the current administration has been determined by the "neoconservatives," individuals who virtually see no distinction between the "interest" of the US and Israel and might even put the "interest" of the latter above the former. Now, I put "neoconservative" in quotation marks because, for reasons that I will not go into here, it is an ambiguous and overrated expression. Also, I put the term interest in quotation marks, since one has to distinguish between perceived and actual interests on the one hand and the interest of ordinary citizens and those of the elite on the other. The individuals who make the US foreign policy, particularly the "neoconservatives," represent a privileged group of people with a unique and peculiar view of the world. To these "neoconservatives" waging wars against Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and possibly Iran and Syria, might appear to be in the "interest" of the US, even though in actuality such policies might be very harmful to the interest of ordinary citizens of the US, particularly in the long-run.

The current relation between the US and Israel, of course, goes beyond the issue of the strength of the "neoconservatives" in the White House. The US Congress, too, has traditionally been, and remains to this day, a close ally of Israel. However, given that the US war against Iraq is going very badly-and the fact the US was egged on to start this war by some Israeli politicians and their "neoconservative" allies in the US-it appears that a few US Congressmen have become lately somewhat uneasy about their blind, unequivocal support for Israel.

Q. How do you evaluate the integration of US and Israeli policy?

A: As it is clear from my answer above, the integration of the US and Israeli policy is nothing new, it is many decades old. But, as I also indicated above, under the current administration this integration has reached a level not seen before. Even at the beginning of the Bush Administration the integration was not as strong as it became later. We all remember that immediately after the September 11 (2001) events the Bush Administration spoke of the creation of a Palestinian State and started a courtship dance with Iran. But the talk and dance ended as soon as the Israeli forces inside and outside the US intervened. Binyamin Netanyahu's September 21, 2001, testimony before the US congress-when he stated that "if the US includes terrorism-sponsoring regimes like Syria, Iran, or the Palestinian Authority in a coalition against worldwide terrorism, then the alliance 'will be defeated from the beginning'"- set the stage for a radical reversal of the US newly conceived policy. Similarly, Ariel Sharon's October 6, 2001, warning that the US should not "repeat the terrible mistake of 1938" stifled any attempt to moderate the US policy. Finally, the January 6, 2002, Karine-A affair-when Israel allegedly captured a ship carrying Iranian arms to the Palestinian Authority group-put a complete stop to any rapprochement between the US and Iran or attempt to establish a Palestinian State. The result was the January 29, 2002, State of the Union Address by President Bush, when the "neoconservative" concept of "axis of evil," coined apparently by David Frum, was put forward. From then on the "neoconservatives" seemed to have complete control of the US Middle East policy and integrated this policy fully with that of Israel.

Q. How do you see the role and the position of the Israeli lobby in the US? Are there similar lobbies in Israel that advocate for US interest?

A. This is a very broad and complicated question that requires at least a book to answer. There are, of course, a number of articles and books written on the subject of various Israeli lobby groups in the US, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The most recent essay, and probably the most comprehensive and academic one, is that of John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt, which can be found online. But even this analysis is not detailed enough and, unfortunately, details that are provided appear only in the footnotes. My own book will deal with the subject matter in a greater detail, but only in so far as Iran is concerned. In other words, I investigate the role that various Israeli lobby groups and individuals have played, particularly since the early 1990s, in formulating the US foreign policy towards Iran. The role, I would argue, is quite extensive. Indeed, I argue, that we have to trace this role to Martin Indyk, the communication advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a staffer at AIPAC, the head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (which is an offshoot of AIPAC), the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at the US Department of State under the Clinton Administration and the former US ambassador to Israel. In his 1993 inaugural address as the national security advisor to Clinton, Indyk stated:

The Clinton administration's policy of "dual containment" of Iraq and Iran derives in the first instance from an assessment that the current Iraqi and Iranian regimes are both hostile to American interests in the region. Accordingly, we do not accept the argument that we should continue the old balance of power game, building up one to balance the other. . . The coalition that fought Saddam remains together, as long as we are able to maintain our military presence in the region, as long as we succeed in restricting the military ambitions of both Iraq and Iran, and as long as we can rely on our regional allies Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the GCC, and Turkey-to preserve a balance of power in our favor in the wider Middle East region, we will have the means to counter both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes. We will not need to depend on one to counter the other.

As I argue in my book, Indyk's claim that the policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq was something new was exaggerated and the roots of the policy go back to the Carter Administration and particularly Zbigniew Brzezinski. Setting aside this issue, however, I argue that with the help of Martin Indyk, a few other individuals in the Clinton White House and a few powerful people in the US Congress, various Israeli lobby groups, especially AIPAC, became the underwriters of the sanction policy of the US against Iran. This is particularly true of the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. But Indyk, I argue, represented the moderate wing of the Israeli lobby groups in general and the Washington Institute in particular. He was close to the Israeli Labor party.

When the Bush Administration came to power, more radical members of the Washington Institute, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, took over the formulation and implementation of the White House Middle East policy. These "neoconservatives" were closely linked to the Likud party members, particularly Binyamin Netanyahu. As such, their idea of "containment" of Iran and Iraq went beyond the roundabout way of passing sanctions to ruin the economy of these countries, bringing about discontent, causing revolt and then overthrowing their governments; they advocated a more direct way for "regime change": using the military might of the US to attack these countries. Even though some of these individuals have left office, there are still many such characters in the current administration. One such person is Elliott Abrams, the current deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy. He is, of course, a well-known figure who was convicted, and subsequently pardoned, on charges related to the Iran-Contra scandal. Another one is Stephen Hadley, the current national security adviser to President Bush. Under former President George H.W. Bush, Hadley served as an assistant to Wolfowitz, who was then Undersecretary of Defense. Yet, another individual is Stuart Levey, the present Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Levey has been working zealously to stop foreign banks from dealing with some Iranian banks. In 2005 Stuart Levey gave an address at AIPAC that began with: "It is a real pleasure to be speaking with you today. I have been an admirer of the great work this organization does since my days on the one-year program at Hebrew University in 1983 and 1984. I want to commend you for the important work that you are doing to promote strong ties between Israel and the United States and to advocate for a lasting peace in the Middle East." Then he goes on to talk about what his office does and how "[w]e levy economic sanctions to pressure obstructionist regimes, and we have the ability to freeze the assets of wrongdoers."

The Israeli lobby groups' influence is, of course, not confined to its members and associates in the White House. The lobby has a great influence in the US Congress as well. Its own current website verifies this influence by stating:

For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong. From a small public affairs boutique in the 1950s, AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."

Political advocacy is one of the most effective ways in which AIPAC works to accomplish its mission. Each year, AIPAC is involved in more than 100 legislative and policy initiatives aimed at broadening and deepening the U.S.-Israel bond.

Among the "more than 100 legislative and policy initiatives" that each year AIPAC helps to underwrite are the numerous sanctions bills against Iran that I alluded to above. Obviously, given the short space here, I can't elaborate on this and you have to wait until I finish my book.

As far as the second part of your question is concerned, I don't have an answer. That is, whether there are similar lobby groups in Israel that advocate for US interest is not something that I have followed.

Q. You have used the term USrael. What interpretation did you have in mind? What are the implications of this concept for international relation?

A. It seems that some individuals have attributed coining the term "USrael" to me. Unfortunately, I am not the originator of the term. It existed before it appeared in some of my essays. I used it in the sense that under the Bush Administration the US and Israel's foreign policy towards the Middle East converged and became virtually indistinguishable. As I explained earlier, this started to happen a few weeks after the events of the September 11, 2001, when the "neoconservatives" aligned the US policy in the Middle East with that of Likud. Given this alignment, there is no significant policy difference between the US and Israel over Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria or Lebanon. This was not the case under the previous administrations. For example, during the Clinton Administration the Likud and their "neoconservative" counterparts in the US were trying to toughen the US stand towards Iran. But near the end of the Clinton era US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, under the pressure from the US corporate lobby, tried to modify the direction of the US belligerent policy towards Iran, much to the dismay of the Israeli lobby groups. Her March 17, 2000, speech-in which she nearly apologized for the CIA's 1953 coup in Iran and spoke of the "regrettably shortsighted" US policy of supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war-was part of her attempt at rapprochement. We have not seen such rapprochements since the "neoconservatives" took over the US Middle East foreign policy and made it almost identical to that of Israel.

The nearly complete alignment of the US and Israel foreign policy has had a profound implication for the Middle East. For example, the US used to pretend to be an "honest broker" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But now that veneer has mostly disappeared and the US does not even pretend to be a neutral mediator. Since post September 11, Israel has had a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians. It also has had a free hand in waging the summer of 2006 war against the people of Lebanon. Indeed, as the world watched, the US became the partner of Israel in that war. With regard to Iran, as I have argued above, the implication is clear. Israel and its various affiliates in the US are now the leading force in pushing the US in the direction of confrontation with Iran.

Q. How do you evaluate political developments in the US and Israel? For example, does the change in the balance of power in the US Congress or the coming to power of a different faction in Israel have any impact on strategic interest?

A. It is evident from what I stated earlier that historically both the Democratic and Republican Parties have supported the policy of "containment" of Iran since 1979. This support appears to continue in the future as well. For example, on January 24, 2007, The Jerusalem Post reported from Herzliya Conference in Israel that at "a time when most US Democrats are calling for less military involvement abroad Edwards of South Carolina told conference participants his country must do everything it can to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." According to this report, Edwards, a leading Democratic presidential candidate stated: "All the options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon." Similarly, the Associate Press of February 2, 2007, reported that Hilary Clinton, another leading Democratic presidential candidate, addressed an AIPAC event a day earlier and stated: "I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies." The prime "enemy" of both countries was, of course, Iran. According to the same report, Hilary Clinton, then stated that the "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. . . In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table." On the same day, the Associated Press reported that the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lashed out at Hilary Clinton and accused her of "timidity" regarding the security threat posed by Iran. Romney, according to the report, told the conservative Republicans that at "this point, we don't need a listening tour about Iran. . . Someone who wants to engage Iran displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat of a nuclear Iran." The same Mitt Romney also appeared at the Herzliya Conference, according to The Jerusalem Post, and stated that "Iran must be stopped, Iran can be stopped, and Iran will be stopped. . . The heart of the jihadist threat is Iran. . . I believe that Iran's leaders and ambitions represent the greatest threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union and before that Nazi Germany." In a more recent interview with ABC News on February 16, 2007, Mitt Romney called the whole nation of Iran "genocidal" and "suicidal," adding that "you say to yourself this is a setting where, of course, you have to consider the possibility of military action, but we're not there." The rest of the Republican presidential candidates are not much different. The same Jerusalem Post that I referred to above also stated that another "Republican hopeful Sen. John McCain said the US should 'intensify' its military support for Israel to ensure that the country maintained it strategic edge over those who were bent on destroying it such as Iran."

As we can see from the above, presidential candidates from both parties are singing the same tune. The question is which wing of the Israeli lobby groups will be put in charge of formulating the Middle East policy when one of these candidates is elected. Will it be Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross type or Wolfowitz and Perle kind?

Given that the US policy towards Iran is devised by different wings of the Israeli lobby groups, and given the affiliations of these groups with Israeli parties, it is natural to expect the same kind of mind set among the Israeli leaders. These leaders, too, are unified in their policy of "containment" of Iran. Whether it is Likud, Labor or Kadima party, the essence of the policy will remain the same. The only difference appears to be how each party or individual intends to "contain" Iran. Some Israeli politicians are more aggressive and fanatical in their "containment" policy than others. For example, in their campaign to demonize Iran, both Binyamin Netanyahu, the "hawkish" former Prime Minister, and Shimon Peres, the "dovish" former prime minister, have repeatedly compared today's Iran to Nazi Germany. But, according to the Agence France Presse of December 5, 2005, Benjamin Netanyahu promised "a pre-emptive air strike against Iran's nuclear installations if he were to be re-elected." Shimon Peres might think twice about such a strike.

Q. How does the US establish a balance between its relation with Arab allies and Israel?

A. Historically, successive US administrations have maintained a symbiotic relation with both their Arabs client states and Israel. At times US's alliance with the Arabs states has caused some annoyance on the part of Israel and its lobby groups. For example, in the early years of the Iran-Iraq war the US decided to sell Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) to Saudi Arabia to assist Saddam Hussein with intelligence. This decision did not sit well with some Israeli politicians and their allies in the US who were interested in "containing" Iraq first. Similar frictions and fissures have appeared at other times. The interesting issue is what has happened in recent times. Some "neoconservatives" in the Bush White House, such as David Wurmser-currently, Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney-who saw the policy of "dual containment" as too roundabout and time consuming, advocated adopting a new policy: "Dual Rollback of Iran and Iraq." According to this policy, the US was supposed to attack Iraq, bring the Shiite majority to power, use this power-which supposedly would be friendly to the US and Israel-as a counterweight to Shiite Iran, and then do a "regime change" in Iran. The policy, however, has so far not worked as planned. That is, the Iraqi Shiites have not challenged Iran or shown a great affection and admiration for the US and Israel. Given this reality, we now hear something new in the US-Israeli circle: a dangerous "Shiite crescent," headed by Iran, is appearing in the Middle East, stretching from Lebanon to Iraq and beyond. This crescent, we are told, must be defeated by an alliance of the US, Israel and Sunni Arab states. The implication of this policy is that Israel and its neoconservative allies in the US might no longer oppose a close relation between US and its traditional Arab client states, such as Saudi Arabia. The new policy is, of course, based on the old dictum of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The US and Israel have played this game many times before in their pursuit of colonial domination, sometimes with costly blowbacks. The sad fact is that some Arab states appear to be going along with this old colonial trick and are joining the alliance against the "Shiite crescent."

Q. What is the role of Israel in pressuring Iran regarding the nuclear issue?

A. The role is extensive, particularly if you also include Israel's lobby groups and associates in the US. But showing how extensive it is requires writing a detailed account, which obviously I can't provide here. In my book I trace one of the first official claims about Iran making an atomic weapon to the "neoconservative" Kenneth L. Adelman. According to the July 1984 Department of State Bulletin, on May 2, 1984, Adelman-who was at the time the US Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency-gave an address before the "Mid-America Committee" in Chicago in which he spoke of some "frightening thoughts," such as Iran, Libya, or Palestine Liberation Organization acquiring a nuclear bomb. Adelman then stated that "today, talk about the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran is in the news. A British defense journal recently alleged that Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran is only 2 years away from acquiring nuclear weapons." Twenty three years later, we are still told by the "neoconservatives" and their counterparts in Israel that Iran is 2, 5 or 10 years away from the nuclear bomb. In my book I will provide details of twenty three years of such claims by the Israelis and their associates in the US. Let me just mention one interesting claim. Starting in 1992 Israelis and some "Iranian dissidents," who have been working closely with the Israeli intelligence, began to claim that Iran actually possesses three or four nuclear warheads. According to this claim, Iran had acquired these warheads from Kazakhstan, after the break up of the Soviet Union.

As late as 1998 the news still percolated within the Israeli, "Iranian dissidents" and some American circles. For example, on April 9, 1998, The Jerusalem Post stated: "Iran received several nuclear warheads from a former Soviet republic in the early 1990s and Russian experts maintained them, according to Iranian government documents relayed to Israel and obtained by The Jerusalem Post." "The documents," the Israeli newspaper went on to say, "deemed authentic by US congressional experts and still being studied in Israel, contain correspondence between Iranian government officials and leaders of the Revolutionary Guards that discusses Iran's successful efforts to obtain nuclear warheads from former Soviet republics." The paper then went on to say: "The documents appear to bolster reports from 1992 that Iran received enriched uranium and up to four nuclear warheads from Kazakhstan, with help from the Russian underworld." The following day The Jerusalem Post ran another piece on the same story. This time it claimed that "Iran paid $25 million for what appears to have been two tactical atomic weapons smuggled out of the former Soviet Union in a highly classified operation aided by technicians from Argentina, according to Iranian government documents marked top secret and obtained by The Jerusalem Post." All this, of course, was pure, sheer fabrication by Israel, their US allies and their "Iranian dissidents" partners. The sensational story, however, soon disappeared as the CIA and US government admitted that there was no truth to it. Afterward, the Israelis and their allies went back to estimating how soon Iran will have the atomic bomb; and since the bomb never materialized, they kept pushing the estimate back. Of course, as I will show in my book, the alleged Iranian bomb, similar to the proverbial "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is an excuse. The real intention is to complete the "dual containment" by "containing" or destroying the one country that is still standing.

Q. The US is facing the anger of the Middle Eastern people as the result of its support for Israel. Is it possible to continue this? Or will the US reach a point when it will be ready to change the equation.

A: As long as the anger of the people of Middle East does not translate into overthrowing the corrupt, tyrannical and reactionary regimes in the Middle East who have symbiotic relation with the US and Israel, I don't see much fundamental change in the US foreign policy. So far, the anger has resulted mostly in sporadic, isolated and individual acts of violence. Such acts have removed the veneer of US being an "honest broker" between Israel and her opponents. Yet, at the same time, these actions have hardened the position of the US, brought her even closer to Israel and resulted in more acts of violence on the part of the US and Israel.

Q. How do you access the prospect of development in the Middle East in the next year?

A. It is very difficult and dangerous to predict the future, especially if one is familiar with the past and its complexities. This is particularly true if one is dealing with individuals who appear to be irrational or believe in a Hobbesian world. Will there be another election in Israel to bring back Binyamin Netanyahu to office? Will he fulfill his promise of "a pre-emptive air strike against Iran's nuclear installations if he were to be re-elected"? Will "neoconservatives" push for the use of a "shock and awe" air strike against Iran and carpet bomb Iranian nuclear and military sites, however irrational that action might appear to be to the rest of the world? Or will Iran capitulate, give up its right under Article IV of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and accept the US-Israeli demand-which is now backed by a UN sanction-to stop all enrichments activities? If Iran does accept this demand, what other demands will be put forward by the US and Israel, given that the nuclear issue, as I argued, is merely an excuse for "containment" of Iran? If Iran does not accept the demand, and if rational people around the world can stop the US and Israel from military adventurism, will there be more severe sanctions drafted against Iran by the UN? Will Russia and China be bribed, cajoled, arm twisted again to go along with these sanctions? Will these sanctions bring about what the US and Israel have been after for years, namely, to ruin the Iranian economy, bring about unrest, and make Iran ripe for a US invasion, as was the case in Iraq? These are difficult questions to answer and make predicting events in the future nearly impossible. The ultimate question, however, is this: is Iran ready to deal with all and every contingency? Does Iran know how this game is played and does it have a well-thought-of, well-articulated and unified game plan of its own? Is Iran fully aware that the US and Israel have patiently and meticulously worked for decades to push Iran into the current corner, where UN sanction has been finally imposed on it? Is Iran ready for the further tightening of the UN sanction noose? Could the economy of Iran, which is already under severe constraints, withstand further pressure? Are Iranians willing to tolerate additional economic hardship, such as the reduction in foreign investment, falling employment and rising inflation? Having carefully studies the history of the US-Israel-Iran entanglement, and having heard many voices from Iran, empty rhetoric and wishful thinking, I am not sure if the answers to the above questions are all affirmative.

Q. In your view is the confrontation of the US with Iran directed toward the strategic position of Iran and its potential impact in the region or is this effort directed to weaken the political and spiritual influence of Iran in the region?

A. It seems like most empires in the past the US does not tolerate disobedience and will not accept any challengers in the world, whether it is Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Cuba or Venezuela it does not make much difference. Thus, it is not necessarily the strategic position of Iran or its political and spiritual influence in the region that has led to the confrontation between the two countries. The confrontation, as it is well known, goes back to 1979, when the US "lost" Iran. Ever since the US has been trying to bring back the old order and make Iran another obedient, client state. To use an American expression, until Iran says "uncle" to the US and Israel it is considered to be an "out law," a "rogue nation" that must be punished. Of course, the strategic position of Iran and its political alignment with groups such as Hamas and Hezbolah puts her on the top of the US's agenda.

Q. Will Iran be able to have the capacity to form an alliance against Israel in the region? Or will Iran be forced to collaborate with Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to form an anti-Israel alliance as opposed to moderate Arab countries?

A. As mentioned earlier, having failed to achieve the desired result in Iraq, the US and Israel are now trying to create the myth of the Shiite crescent headed by Iran. As I also indicated, the traditional Arab client states of the US appear to be accepting this new myth and are going along with the idea of joining US and Israel in the "containment" of Iran. Whether Iran can change this trend appears to be doubtful given the nature of these Arab regimes and their long, historical, and symbiotic relation with the US. That leaves Iran with a very limited choice of allies, such as Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. But, obviously, this alliance doe not do much for Iran in terms of security. Actually, a major reason for the US-Israel policy of "containment," and the resulting insecurity that Iran faces, is Iran's support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. As I have argued elsewhere and will argue in my book, when the policy of "dual containment" was announced in the early 1990s, Iran was said to commit three "sins:" 1) sponsoring terrorism worldwide-which was meant support for Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad-2) opposing Middle East peace efforts-which was meant the Oslo "peace process"-and 3) developing weapons of mass destruction-which, at the time, was left ambiguously defined. The sin of opposing the Olso "peace process" was soon dropped out of the equation, since Israel opposed it as well. But the other two sins remained; and, to paraphrase Paul Wolfowitz's explanation for invading Iraq, for bureaucratic reasons the US and Israel settled on the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the core reason for "containing" Iran. In actuality, the main reason for Israel's belligerent policy towards Iran has been the latter's support for Hamas and Hezbollah. As long as that support remains, the attempt to "contain" Iran and the resulting insecurity will remain.

Q. Will Israel serve as pressure lever against Iran? Or will she, by exaggerating the nuclear threat of Tehran, try to create Western shield for itself?

A. Israel, as I have alluded to above and will show in my book, has been the prime force behind "containing" Iran since the end of the US invasion of Iraq in 1991 and the subsequent UN sanctions imposed on the country. Also, given what I said earlier, it is clear that Israel does not need a Western shield and is not really worried about Iran building a nuclear weapon. It is well known-and lately Olmert admitted it indirectly- that Israel has many nuclear warheads. With those warheads, and her advanced Western technology, Israel cannot possibly feel threatened by Iran supposedly developing a primitive nuclear bomb. As President Jacques Chirac stated in his January 31, 2007, interview with The New York Times: "Where would Iran drop this bomb? On Israel? . . It would not have gone off 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground." As I have argued above, the issue of Iran allegedly developing a nuclear weapon is an excuse by the US and Israel to "contain" Iran in the same manner that they "contained" Iraq. The "containment" of Iraq, of course, did not go exactly as planned, but Iraq will be economically and militarily out of action for decades to come. For some of the architects of the US invasion of Iraq, this is a good enough "containment."

Sasan Fayazmanesh is chair of the Department of Economics at California State University, Fresno.

>> New York Protest: No War On Iran!

2009-11-28T00:18:00.000-08:00

Iran Demonstration: NO to sanctions! NO to another war!

Report by: Alison Bodine, New York

November 23, 2009

On Monday Nov 23rd a demonstration was called by the American Iranian Friendship Committee and the Stop War on Iran Campaign. Essentially there were some speakers invited to a Young Men's Hebrew Association (the equivalent of the YMCA, but this one features a lot of Israeli speakers and performances) , in an affluent part of the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The meeting was themed "Time Is Running Out: What Now for the US and Iran?," and the speakers are all advocates for further sanctions, as well as bombs and further threats against Iran. More than 25 people gathered at the Main entrance to the YMHA and held signs provided by both the Stop War on Iran Campaign, and the American Iranian Friendship Association, and a banner was held with the demand: United Against a Nuclear Israel. There was a media person present from IRNA, and many people did short interviews about why were were gathered, and the necessity to be against all sanctions, threats and war on Iran. The demonstration lasted for about 1 hour. Throughout the demonstration, protesters were handing out information about Israel's nuclear arms and US funding, and reception was very good with people walking by.

Action initiated by: American Iranian Friendship Committee - http://www.iranaifc.com/

Supported by International Action Center – http://www.iacenter.org/

and Stop War on Iran Campaign - http://www.stopwaroniran.org/

>> A Death In Tehran, Or Unbounded Mythmaking?

2009-11-27T23:53:00.000-08:00

A Death In Tehran, Or Unbounded Mythmaking?
By Kaveh Afrasiabi
Source: IRANAIFC
2009/11/22

To put to the blame for Neda's death squarely on the shoulder of the government, when it may well have been the work of one of Iran's multiple armed dissident groups or even agents of foreign government intent on exploiting Neda's death for their own objectives, is an act of media prejudice and certainly below the bar of integrity, says Kaveh Afrasiabi. This week, mythmaking about Neda Agha Soltan, the 26 year old Iranian woman who was shot to death during the post-election clashes in Tehran, went into a higher gear by PBS Frontline's airing of a British documentary, A Death In Tehran. Hailed as a martyr and "face" of Iran's pro-democracy movement, Neda's iconic status has been recently institutionalized by a chair in philosophy at none other than Oxford University honored after her name, and her symbolism as a generational source of inspiration for the millions of young Iranians yearning for greater freedom in their clergy-controlled regime certainly came out in the multiple interviews with various young Iranians shown in the documentary. But, a major flaw of the film was its uncritical adoption of the version of facts surrounding Neda's death presented by Arash Hejazi, widely known as "the doctor who tried to save Neda." The physician-turned-novelist lives in exile in England now and has adamantly claimed that he saw a Basiji (irregular government security force) being beaten up by a crowd on the scene of Neda's death, who was let go after confessing to his heinous crime. In the press release for A Death In America, the Frontline claims that it has accessed a "new video" showing Neda's murderer, and the film provides a fleeting image of a man attacked by a crowd, but this was likely from another location and another day, in light of several such scenes that transpired in Tehran those days. What is more disturbing about the film is, however, the minutest lack of critical scrutiny of Dr. Hejazi, whose witness testimony about Neda's instant death in his arms has been contradicted by Neda's music teacher and others who rushed to a hospital, still alive, per the information from a Los Angeles Times reporter, Borzou Daragahi, relayed to this author a few days after Neda's death. The question then is: why didn't Hejazi heed the call of his medical ethics and continue to tend to Neda as she was put in a car and rushed to the hospital? This is a legitimate question that the millions of viewers watching A Death In Tehran both in US and Europe and elsewhere around the world were entitled to hear -- just as this author, who was interviewed not once but twice by the producer, Monica Garnsey, for this program, articulated in his comments. Unfortunately, the producers opted to censor my interview for the sake of maintaining Hejazi's reputation unblemished. Yet, for a program subtitled "an investigation" into the life and death of Neda, the omission of such questions from Dr. Hejazi and the suppression of alternative view points simply means that A Death in Tehran was not interested in truth but rather Iran-bashing. For sure Iran's current rulers have much to be criticised for, and there is certainly no excuse for not putting on trial some rogue officials who are implicated in prison abuses and the like. But to put to the blame for Neda's death squarely on the shoulder of the government, when it may well have been the work of one of Iran's multiple armed dissident groups or even agents of foreign government intent on exploiting Neda's death for their own objectives, is an act of media prejudice and certainly below the bar of integrity that Frontline is known for. "If a British doctor had shown such a dereliction of his medical duty, running to upload Neda's death and promote his heorism, instead of doing his best to keep her alive en route to the hospital, I am sure the London tabloids would be out for his blood, so why is this coward taken for a hero when the evidence suggests he has lied and did not do what he can to save Neda?" I had posed in my suppressed interview. Also, I had drawn attention that Mr. Hejazi's Brazilian friend, the author Paolo Ceolho, had in his June tweeter messages falsely claimed that Hejazi had treated many wounded in the Iran-Iraq war -- that could not be since Hejazi now 38 was only 17 when that war ended in 1988. Sadly, Frontline has further damaged its prestige by turning as one of its offshoots a largely dissident website, Tehranbureau, that is run by a recent college graduate. At a time when the nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington are on-going and there are still chances of a breakthrough in the US-Iran stalemated relations, it does not bode well for the US's public networks to turn themselves into appendages of Iranian dissident groups, particularly since some of them, such as Tehranbureau, are filled with unsubstantiated claims of a "stolen elections" in the recent presidential elections in Iran, despite the lack of any credible evidence to corroborate it. A clue to the bad-faith intention of this film's producers, they initially informed this author that their goal was to produce a documentary on post-election political developments, not a Neda story. Therefore, it came as a shocking surprise to hear from one of them, Iason Athanasiadis, over the weekend that he had quit his role after seeing the program and being "shocked and completely disappointed" that despite their agreement, the executive producers had shifted the focus to Neda. That telephone conversation took place a couple of days prior to the film's airing on PBS and BBC on Tuesday night, and Iason alerted me that in his opinion it was 60 percent propaganda. But, after watching this sham documentary that is permeated from the beginning to the end with the venomous air of demonization of Iran's regime, idolization of Hejazi and other dissidents, etc., I have concluded that Iason was too generous and that A Death In Tehran is at minimum 80 percent propaganda-sold-as-investigative reporting, simply wishing to pollute the audiences world-wide, especially in Iran, against Tehran's rulers, in tandem with what appears to be a singular determination by the British government to cause a regime change in Iran, thus delivering the American audience to the British interests.

>> Interference Under a Left Cover

2009-11-24T22:01:00.000-08:00

Interference Under a Left Cover
By Ardeshir Ommani
from Mathaba
Source: Stop War on Iran

While President Obama has talked about `peace and dialogue`, a handful of organizations pretending to be progressive or even left are joining the fray as a fifth column of the United States military aiming at creating a condition of upheaval and de-stabilization inside Iran
At this juncture that the Iranian people and government are trying to resolve their actual or perceived differences regarding the results of the election, anti-Iranian groups in the U.S. and Europe, pretending to be on the side of the Iranian working class, are paving the way for Washington and the Zionist state to accomplish the murderous acts that G.W. Bush could not commit: Bring Down the Islamic Republic of Iran, this time under the Obama Administration.
We suggest that the truly progressive Americans and Iranians should refrain from jumping on the bandwagon of individuals and groups who are financed, outfitted, and promoted in the U.S. media by the intelligence services of the American government, such as the NED, USAID, and dozens of “anti-Islamic” Iranian groups. Clothed in the façade of “democracy, human rights and social freedoms”, these groups are deeply involved in de-stabilization of the Iranian society, promoting civil strife, and using the oldest trick in the bag of the imperialists prior to the actualization of war – demonization of the leaders and government of that country.
The people in the U.S. have a long history of supporting the sovereignty and independence of countries in the crosshairs of the imperialists, as evidenced by their actions during the Vietnam War, their support for liberation struggles in Africa and Latin America, and most recently in their six+ years of struggle to end the war on Iraq. Some individuals and groups who claim to represent the interests of the Iranian working class are advocating the over-throw of the Islamic Republic of Iran, so as to bring a ‘workers democracy’ to Iran. These groups living in the United States, whether Iranian or American who supposedly speak for the Iranian people have not been in Iran for decades, do not read Iranian newspapers and are hardly in communication with any segment of the Iranian working class and poor.
Among these individuals and groups who hope to use their previous anti-Iraq war credentials are Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. On their regularly scheduled Tuesday radio show aired on WBAI in NY on July 21, under the title: The Iranian Working Class Resists the Theocratic State, they spent the entire hour reading stories from so-called “documents” and “evidences” of torture, jailing, anti-worker beatings, suppression of teachers and workers rights, failure to give back pays, etc, etc., all at the hands of the anti-worker, anti-freedom government of the Islamic Republic, but especially condemning the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Their claims of facts and events, many which they made two decades ago, are presented today as “current events” and representative of present-day Iranian society.
We are quite familiar with these phony statistics and claims which came entirely out of the bulletin of a tiny “ultra-left” infamous cult, now being promoted as the champion of the Iranian working class. How did this Osanloo go from an insignificant group with a crude newsletter on line to a “champion” of the Iranian working class with a color bulletin and excellent English, crying about workers and teachers rights is beyond the Iranian people. Osanloo is getting notoriety from his political friends in America. Was his political and perhaps financial support from the infamous International Labour Organisation (ILO) yet another form of interference? These groups enjoy the protection and security of the US imperialist power to demonize and rail against other countries’ governments, using the media apparatus that has been made available to them through implanting themselves in the WBAI and KPFK broadcasts. If these individuals and shady groups are sincere and brave enough to defend the Iranian working class’ rights to organize, then why as Americans do they not mobilize, organize and unionize the US working class, whose union membership hardly exceeds 10% of the working population in this country?
Secondly, if these champions of the international working class are serious about their intentions, why don’t they buy plane tickets, take a trip to Iran and at least meet their clients? Or do they expect, in place of them, the Obama administration to dispatch a few military divisions, consisting of poor blacks, Latin Americans and whites to actualize their dreams of human rights, women’s rights and their Maoist, Trotskyite and anarchist socialism? But no, these champions of the working people of other countries let the real job go to the Twitter operators, the National Endowment for Democracy, International Republic Institute, the US military and the CIA. The common characteristic of these small groups with their comrades in arms in the Department of State is that both despise Muslim nations who challenge Washington and defend their sovereignty and independence.
Strangely enough, at this time that the hated figure of G.W. Bush, the symbol of war and aggression, is out of the field, and President Obama has talked about “peace and dialogue”, a handful of organizations pretending to be progressive or even left are joining the fray as a fifth column of the United States military aiming at creating a condition of upheaval and de-stabilization inside Iran.
The Iranian people, the same way that they hate to see foreign troops on their soil, no doubt will resent the interference of “pro-democracy” pro-human rights, pro gay rights, etc. groups who are fundamentally fighting against the Islamic peoples’ culture and traditions, as well as their societal structure. That’s why their Hunger Strikes and anti-government demonstrations have to take place outside of Iran in front of the UN and some other parliaments in London and Paris, buttressed by Hollywood names and corporate media, instead of with the real working majority inside Iran.
The Iranian people are still in the process of recovering from the eight year war and 30-year sanctions imposed upon them. Any further imposition and attacks by groups in the U.S. and Europe would be interpreted as another plan at re-establishing U.S. hegemony in the Middle East region.
At the exact time that the United States has escalated the troops in Afghanistan, the attacks on the people of the Waziristan region of Pakistan, and the Zionists have sent their nuclear-armed warships into the missile reach of Iran, the interference of groups under any name or cause would constitute another hostile action against the country.

Ardeshir Ommani is an Iranian-born writer and an activist in the U.S. anti-war and anti-imperialist struggle for over 40 years, including against the Vietnam and Iraq wars. He has participated in the U.S. peace movement, working to promote dialogue and peace among nations and to prevent a U.S.-spurred war on Iran. Co-founder of the American Iranian Friendship Committee, (AIFC), he writes articles of analysis on Iran -U.S. relations, the U.S.-Iran economy and has translated articles and books from English into Farsi, the Persian language. Please visit AIFC’s website to learn more about Iran and Global issues at: http://www.iranaifc.com/

>> Iranian Irrationality? Maybe Not

2009-11-24T20:53:00.000-08:00

Iranian Irrationality? Maybe Not
By Jeff Nygaard

Source: CounterPunch

November 2009

The current hysteria about Iranian nuclear weapons has meaning, but the meaning is almost completely obscured by official propaganda. The best first step in the effort to sort through the propaganda is to consider which countries already have nuclear weapons. And the second step is to look at a map of Southwest Asia.
There are eight nations in the world known to possess nuclear weapons. All of them are close to Iran, either literally close or close in the imperial sense. Five of them—China, France, Russia, England, and the United States—are officially a part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, described as “the cornerstone of the global nonproliferation regime.” Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—also have nuclear weapons, although none have joined the NPT. Israel “does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons,” according to the Arms Control Association, but everyone knows they have them. Maybe 200 or 300, no one seems to know for sure.
Now look at, or picture, our map of Iran. Imagine being an Iranian, and looking around to see from which direction a threat to your nation—nuclear or otherwise—might come. What would you see?
Immediately to the west of Iran is Iraq, effectively under U.S. control (this is the meaning of close in the imperial sense). U.S. covert activities aimed at destabilizing other countries are often based in U.S. embassies, and the U.S. has built “the biggest, most expensive embassy ever” in Iraq, according to the Christian Science Monitor. The New York Times reported on October 9th that “The Americans hope that by next spring, they will be operating from ... 6 supersize bases and 13 smaller ones” in Iraq.
Immediately to the east of Iran are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan is a major, if erratic, U.S. ally, and has its own unregulated and unsupervised nuclear arsenal. Afghanistan, like Iraq to the east, is functioning as a staging area for U.S. imperial activities, even if it’s not totally under U.S. control. While the Obama administration officially debates what to do, “The CIA is deploying teams of spies, analysts and paramilitary operatives to Afghanistan, part of a broad intelligence ‘surge’ that will make the agency's station there among the largest in CIA history, U.S. officials say.” That’s according to the Los Angeles Times of September 20th.
We see that “the largest embassy ever” lies immediately to the west of Iran, and one of the largest CIA stations in history lies immediately to the east. So the means are there to back up the repeated U.S. threats against Iran—the U.S. has said repeatedly that “no option is off the table,” the accepted code for a military threat. In addition, the Middle East’s only nuclear state, Israel, is not shy about threatening Iran. A fairly typical headline appeared recently on CBS News, reading “Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran.” And the Associated Press reported on July 5th that “Vice President Joe Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.”
Beyond the countries it is occupying, the U.S. maintains additional military facilities all around Iran. Not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Turkey, another country that borders Iran. A number of U.S. military bases (half a dozen, perhaps) are maintained just across the Persian Gulf in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—a distance of 100-200 miles from Iran. Again, refer to our map.
I would be remiss if I did not mention in this context the massive U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, which GlobalSecurity.org’s John Pike refers to as “the single most important military facility [that the U.S. has] got.” The base, used for secret detentions and torture as well as a launching pad for attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, is named “Camp Justice.” Iran is well within range of the U.S. bombers based at “Camp Justice.”
The Upside-Down World
In the world of Empire, illegal detentions and torture are transformed into Justice. But that’s not all that gets inverted in reporting on the maintenance of the U.S. Empire.
On September 28th Iran announced that it had test-fired some missiles, saying that “Iranian missiles are able to target any place that threatens Iran.” The Associated Press report on this event bore the headline, “Iran Tests Advanced Missiles, Raising More Concern.” The “concern” arises in part, according to the AP, from the fact that “U.S. military bases in the Middle East” would now be “within striking distance” of Iranian missiles.
In this Upside-Down World, defense thus becomes offense. Consider: The World’s Only Superpower maintains military bases around the world (more than 700 of them!), including in two countries that it is currently occupying. This Superpower possesses approximately 10,000 nuclear weapons, remains the only country that has ever actually used such weapons, and also happens to be the country that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953. The country that lies in between the two U.S.-occupied countries, and which is surrounded by U.S. military bases, is thought to be attempting to acquire the capacity to attack the bases of the Superpower that lie near its borders. Yet the global reach and bloody history of the Superpower in the region is not what “raises concern.” What “raises concern” is the possibility that the weaker state may be developing the capacity to defend itself. Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history, notes scholar Juan Cole.
The pattern repeats itself in the media endlessly. As in a story that ran over the UPI wire service on July 25. The lead paragraph was accurate, saying “Iran would bomb Israel's nuclear facilities if Israel were to attack Iran, the head of the Revolutionary Guard said Saturday.” Sounds like self-defense, right? But here’s the headline: “Iranian General Threatens Israeli Nukes.”
Iran is well aware of the fact that the most recent victim of U.S. military attack and occupation was Iraq, a weak state that seemed to have little capacity to defend itself, while North Korea, which has tested nuclear devices and has weapons-grade materials and has tested its own missiles, was left alone.
Iran Irrational? Maybe Not
Since 1979 Iran has been portrayed in this country as an enemy of the United States, and in recent months the news is filled with talk of the “Iranian threat.” But Iran was a big ally of the U.S. before 1979. According to University of Virginia professor emeritus R.K. Ramazani, “the United States itself actually relied primarily on Iran to perform the role of the ‘policeman’ for the Gulf region” until the Iranian revolution. So we can see that there is nothing inherently “anti-U.S.” about Iran.
If Iran is now a threat to the U.S.—and everything the U.S. government does and says indicates that they consider Iran to be a threat—what is the nature of that threat? Is it really nuclear weapons? I think that’s unlikely, for a number of reasons. Here they are:
Dr. Subhash Kapila, a scholar writing in a 2006 paper for the South Asia Analysis Group, states bluntly that “Iran with or without nuclear weapons can never match American military predominance.” This point is supported by everything I’ve been saying about U.S. military strength in the region.
Kapila adds that “The main strategic impulse that formulates US threat perceptions arising from Iran is the emergence of ‘Iran as a regional power in the Gulf Region’ and its consequent effects on US national interests in the region.”
Congressional foreign policy advisor Gregory Aftandilian stated in October of 2008 a point that is rarely heard in the U.S.: “Iran is not stupid enough to strike Israel…it has a long history, thousands of years, of statecraft…Tehran is not suicidal.”
His point is reinforced by the words of John Negroponte, speaking before the Senate Intelligence Committee when he was the Director of National Intelligence back in 2006. He said that “Iranian conventional military power constitutes . . . a challenge to US interests. Iran is enhancing its ability to project its military power in order to threaten to disrupt the operations and reinforcement of US forces based in the region—potentially intimidating regional allies into withholding support for US policy toward Iran—and raising the costs of our regional presence for us and our allies.
“Tehran also continues to support a number of terrorist groups, viewing this capability as a critical regime safeguard by deterring US and Israeli attacks, distracting and weakening Israel, and enhancing Iran’s regional influence through intimidation. Lebanese Hizballah is Iran’s main terrorist ally, which—although focused on its agenda in Lebanon and supporting anti-Israeli Palestinian terrorists—has a worldwide support network and is capable of attacks against US interests if it feels its Iranian patron is threatened.”
Note that the “threat” posed by Iran takes two forms. One is the capacity to challenge “U.S. interests.” The other is the ability to “deter US and Israeli attacks.” That is, to defend itself.Still another reason that it’s unlikely that U.S. planners are worried about Iranian nukes is that Iranian leaders have spoken of a religious prohibition against nuclear weapons. A statement by the Iranian government to the International Atomic Energy Agency on August 10th 2005 stated this: “The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons.” Everything I’ve read indicates that Khamenei is the real power in Iran, despite the fact that President Ahmedinejad gets all the headlines in this country.
It appears that the most rabid disseminators of fear of Iran base their propaganda, in part, on the alleged religious fanaticism of Iran’s leadership. Wouldn’t Khamenei’s fatwa seem convincing proof to such people that Iran is not a threat to use nuclear weapons?
In summary:
1. There is no evidence that Iran is actually aiming to produce nuclear weapons;
2. If Iran were aiming to do so, it would not be evidence of irrationality, given the nature of the threats against that country (nuclear weapons themselves are evidence of irrationality, as I’ll discuss next week);
3. If Iran were to actually go ahead and acquire nuclear weapons, the likelihood of them being used in an offensive way is almost zero.
If one accepts the above points, then all the hysteria about Iran in this country must be motivated by something other than a supposed nuclear threat posed by Iran.
The “game”—as the geo-strategists residing in the Empire would say—in the Middle East is to be the regional power, the country that, at best, shapes events in the region and, at minimum, has veto power over any actions by any states that might interfere with one’s designs. The U.S. wants itself—in partnership with its client state, Israel—to be the power. Iran has long thought of itself as the power. The potential of Iran to challenge the hegemony of the U.S/Israel team in the region is the real “threat” of Iran in the eyes of U.S. planners.
The very bizarre world of the Middle East that most USAmericans see in the media is thus upside-down for a reason, and that reason is to conceal U.S. imperial designs in the region. It well serves the interests of U.S. planners to have the population believe that the “threat” posed by Iran is the result of unreasoning hatred and religious fanaticism. In the face of such an enemy, the only reasonable stance is to maintain a warlike posture, to be prepared to “pre-empt” the likely attack of the fanatics.
The workings of the U.S. Propaganda system in regard to the volatile region that we call the Middle East thus works in our minds to create a perception of the world as a harsh and threatening place. And that’s the point, and that’s precisely why we have an Iranian Threat, and a Terrorist Threat, and why before that we had a Communist Threat. The cost of maintaining the U.S. Empire is high, and only a terrified population will agree to divert almost $700 billion for a single year’s military spending, as is the case this year. And that number, as high as it is, balloons to more than one trillion dollars if we include veteran’s benefits, military spending in the space program budgets, military grants to other countries, interest on debts incurred for previous wars, and so forth. The cost of Empire is high, and the level of fear needed to justify it must be high as well.
Those of us living inside of the U.S. Empire need to be able to see things right-side-up, and to focus our attention on the things that are the biggest threats to our well-being. Iranian nuclear weapons should not be on that list.

Jeff Nygaard is a writer and activist in Minneapolis, Minnesota who publishes a free email newsletter called Nygaard Notes, found at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/

US military basis around Iran

>> Test of wills over Iran plan

2009-11-24T17:45:00.000-08:00

Test of wills over Iran plan
by Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Source: Asia Times
Monday, November 16, 2009

The Barack Obama administration's reliance on quick fixes with regard to Iran's contested nuclear program threatens to derail the White House's Iran engagement, thus delivering a severe blow to the overall edifice of the US's new Middle East approach.
To begin with, the "fuel-for-fuel" deal, given to Iran under the guise of a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whereby Tehran is requested to deliver most of its much-prized "nuclear assets" - some 1,200 kilograms or roughly 70% of its accumulated low-enriched uranium (LEU) - could never have been expected to be feasible.
Under the United Nations-brokered plan, Tehran would send its uranium to Russia and France to be further processed before it was returned for use in a medical reactor core in Tehran. It is now a month and a half since the talks in Geneva between Iran and the "Iran Six" [1] that culminated in Obama's high-profile announcement of the deal.
Yet it is now clear that (a) Iran never agreed to any specific volume of its LEU being shipped out of Iran; only to the basic framework of a draft agreement, and (b) Iran would never consent to any terms that militated against its integrated nuclear strategy.Still, despite unmistakable signals from Tehran that contradicted Obama's announcement, Washington continues to insist that Iran has revised itself and turned down an agreement to which it initially agreed. This is coupled with the insistence by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that "we are not altering it [the draft agreement]".
Soon after Clinton spoke, Mohamad ElBaradei, the outgoing chief of the IAEA, announced after a meeting with Obama at the White House that the US had now proposed giving Turkey the custodianship of Iran's LEU, as a sort of nuclear escrow. This is unworkable, given the complex dynamic of Iran-Turkey relations, and Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was quick to shoot down the idea during a visit to Turkey.
At this point, the US and its allies will need to show greater flexibility and agree to amend the draft agreement. For instance, they could opt for a phased delivery of a much lower amount of Iran's LEU under firm guarantees of timely delivery back to Iran. If the draft stands, Iran may well proceed and produce itself the relatively high (under 20%) enriched uranium it needs for the small Tehran reactor, regardless of the financial and technical challenges. There is no legal bar to this under the articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory, no matter how alarming the perception in the West of Iran developing a weapons program.
Should all sides show good-faith and flexibility, this could turn into a "win-win" scenario: Iran would agree to dip into its store of LEU, which is a national security asset, and the West would enter into a new phase of "turning confrontation into cooperation", as anticipated by ElBaradei.
Instead, the whole deal now has the distinct possibility of turning into a "lose-lose" proposition, as it could culminate in new punitive measures against Iran.
On Monday, President Dmitry Medvedev suggested that Russia was running out of patience with Tehran and that Moscow might consider new sanctions. A senior US official said that neither Obama nor Medvedev had suggested a deadline for Iran, although France has suggested December. Iran is already subject to some UN sanctions - as well as unilateral ones imposed by the US - over its uranium-enrichment program. New legislation has been introduced in the US calling for even tougher sanctions.
In his most recent message to Iran, Obama spoke of wanting new relations "based on mutual interests and mutual respects". Yet, a major problem with the US is that it is unclear who speaks for its Iran policy.
There are several voices, each putting on a different accent, one sounding the alarm on Iran's "existential threat to Israel", another telling a Jewish lobbyist group that the administration's policy is still that of "zero centrifuges" in Iran. Vice President Joseph Biden has told the world that the US does not care if Israel attacks Iran, while some advisors even talk of regime change in Tehran.
Another problem with the US's Iran policy is that it continues to be bedeviled by the pre-existing problem of "getting Iran wrong", recalling the candid statement of president George W Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, who found Iran "an opaque country" that she did not understand.
The question is, does the Obama administration understand Iran any better than its predecessor(s)? The answer is mixed.
To be sure, there is no lack of effort in trying to get Iran right, which is why the administration has recruited John Limbert, a former hostage-turned-Iran expert keen on complex negotiations with Iran, as deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran. He replaces the Iran-phobic Dennis Ross, who has moved on to a new assignment with the national security team in the White House. This portends a new lineup of doves versus hawks on Iran reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter era, when then-secretary of state Cyrus Vance and the hawkish Zbigniew Brzezinski had constant bouts.
"For Iranian negotiators, the test of an agreement is not whether it conforms to the experts' notions of legality, but whether it can be presented as a victory for Islam and Iran," Limbert wrote recently, advising US negotiators to "avoid legal jargon and technicalities".
Limbert is wrong and distorts the current position of Iran's nuclear negotiators - that Iran has not diverted from peaceful nuclear activities and its legal and transparent program, fully monitored by the IAEA, should not be subjected to sanctions and other punitive measures.
For instance, the IAEA in 2007 decided to reduce its technical assistance to Iran by 40%, or 22 out of some 55 programs - an unprecedented action by the IAEA's governing body that Tehran badly wants to see reversed now that repeated IAEA inspections have found no smoking gun that would corroborate the West's and Israel's allegations against Iran.
"We've always said that every option is on the table," Clinton repeated last week. Yet the viable option of abiding by the NPT's norms and respecting Iran's nuclear right to a peaceful enrichment program under the surveillance and safety standards of the IAEA is still missing from the US's assortment of options.
Once the US reconciles itself to this option, which would leave Iran at the threshold of potential but not realized nuclear weapons capability, then all sorts of doors for diplomacy and even rapprochement between the US and Iran would open almost overnight.
For one thing, the US's efforts to enter Iran's nuclear market by, for instance, providing safety instruments for the Tehran reactor, would gain traction with Tehran's decision-makers. And the parties would also warm to enhanced cooperation on many shared interests in the region.
Unfortunately, principally as a result of Israel's pressure, the US is unlikely to consider this option as Israel believes it would deflect from the other standoff in the Middle East - the Palestinian peace process.
Interestingly, though, the Jerusalem Post has indicated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's first priority in his recent, unusually low-key visit to Washington was indeed Iran, not the Palestinian issue. Like one of his predecessors, Ariel Sharon, he apparently wants to "sequence" events.
With Sharon, it was selling to Washington the notion of taking out Iraq's Saddam Hussein first, and now with Netanyahu it is settling business with Tehran's mullahs first. The common denominator of the approaches is an indefinite postponement of the Palestinian problem. The only question is whether or not the old trick works with Obama.
By recognizing Iran's status as a "virtual nuclear-weapon capable" state that nonetheless retains that capability in a state of dormancy, the international community does not fall into the trap of appeasement. The ticking clock of more sanctions and even military action are the worst way to deal with Iran's "nuclear threat" simply by virtue of the fact that a threatened Iran is more likely to go fully nuclear.
------------------
Note1. The "Iran Six" includes the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, France, Britain, China and Russia - plus Germany.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.

>> Case against Iranian foundation threatens mosques

2009-11-24T16:27:00.000-08:00

Case against Iranian foundation threatens mosques
by RACHEL ZOLL (AP)

Source: CASMII
Sunday, November 15, 2009

The organization that federal investigators say is a front for the Iranian government has spent millions of dollars over the years on philanthropy: buying property for four U.S. mosques, funding religious schools and language classes, and translating books on Islam.
The move to seize assets held by the New York-based Alavi Foundation will cripple the charity's work and put the government in the awkward position of potentially shutting down the houses of worship, which occupy buildings and land that Alavi owns.
There are no claims of wrongdoing at the mosques. And they will stay open as prosecutors try to take hold of the hundreds of millions of dollars in Alavi money and property. The mosques were not mentioned by name, only listed by street address.
Still, the mosques and schools could be collateral damage in the case. On Friday, the government moved to cut off Alavi's direct access to its money, according to court records.
Sabukta Chowdhury, a parent at the Razi School, a K-12 school that is part of the Imam Ali Mosque in Queens, said her child would be upset if the school closed.
"The school is very good," Chowdhury said outside the building Friday. "My child very sad. They do not want to go to another school."
Abdulaziz Sachedina, a University of Virginia professor and expert on Shiite Islam, predicted the four Islamic centers in New York, Maryland, Texas and California would shut down without Alavi money.
Alavi was one of the few central sources of funding for American Shiite communities, which have far fewer resources than U.S. Sunnis. Often, the Islamic day schools the centers run are among the few available.
"Muslims aren't used to membership fees," said Sachedina, who has spoken several times at the mosque in Maryland. "In Muslim countries, most services are free, provided by rich people. Here, for the first time, Muslims are required to pay donations. It's very hard to collect money from the people."
The Islamic Education Center of Potomac, Md., reported on its Web site that it already had a budget deficit of more than $60,000 as of June.
As U.S. marshals posted forfeiture notices on the buildings, mosque leaders stressed that they are just the occupants of the properties.
"We are the tenant," said Ghassan Elcheikhali, principal of the Razi School, standing before the forfeiture notice on the front door.
However, the Islamic centers and schools are deeply dependent on Alavi funding, according to tax records and the mosques' own Web sites. That makes them more vulnerable if the foundation closes.
The New York charity started the Potomac mosque in 1981 and ran it directly until 1998, when the congregation and Islamic day school incorporated independently. However, the center pays Alavi nothing for use of the property and receives other support from the organization, according to 2007 tax records.
Alavi also lists among its assets furniture, computers, fixtures and other equipment at the four Islamic centers. All could be seized if the government case prevails. A leader of the Maryland mosque said his attorneys advised him not to comment Friday.
It is extremely rare for U.S. authorities to seize a house of worship.
Legal scholars who study religious-liberty issues say that the case could raise First Amendment concerns, but forfeiture proceedings have some built-in protections for innocent third parties.
Ahmed Shabazz, who organizes community service work at the Islamic Center of Houston, said the mosque serves about 300 families, runs a K-12 Islamic school and has a program that feeds the homeless. Congregants learned of the government action against Alavi as they gathered inside the building for prayer Thursday night.
The Houston congregation includes Iranian, Pakistani, Syrian and Lebanese immigrants, who were the most rattled by the government's move, Shabazz said.
"I'm just upset that the mosques are being targeted for closure," Shabazz said. "There's guilt by association, it seems to me at this point, because of who we rent the property from."
In Queens, people arriving at the mosque for Friday prayer were troubled by the case. Some wondered whether they were targeted for their religion.
Hassan Jaber, who teaches Arabic at the U.N. and has a daughter in the ninth grade, said parents bring their children to Razi in part to preserve their Muslim values. Among the students enrolled are the children of U.N. ambassadors from Iran and other countries, Elcheikhali said.
"They don't like to have a boyfriend for their daughter. They don't like a girlfriend for their son. So this is the point. An Islamic atmosphere as protection," Jaber said.
The school celebrates diversity with an international day, he said. "If you see the flags, the most important flag in the middle is the American flag."

Alavi Foundation's mosque in Houston, Texas, US. Next picture: Mosque in Iran

>> Pragmatists in Tehran

2009-11-24T14:04:00.000-08:00

Pragmatists in Tehran
by Hillary Mann Leverett
Source: Foreign Policy
October 30, 2009

Tehran’s initial oral response to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei’s proposal to send most of Iran’s current stockpile of low enriched uranium (LEU) abroad for processing into fuel rods for its reactor in Tehran, indicates three important things about the Islamic Republic’s strategic perspective. First, Iran is interested in establishing a framework for international cooperation to develop its civil nuclear program. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made this clear in an important speech on Oct. 29.
Second, Iran remains profoundly interested in creating a framework for broader strategic cooperation, especially with the United States. This has been a consistent objective in Iran’s interactions with the United States for several years, across ideologically diverse Iranian administrations, including the current Ahmadinejad administration.
Third, Iran might be willing to address international concerns about its nuclear program by sending portions of its LEU stockpile out of the country for futher, value-adding processing, in the process, making the management of the stockpile more transparent to the international community. However, Tehran will only do this if it is confident that other international parties will follow through on their commitments and that cooperation with those parties will not leave the Islamic Republic more vulnerable to international pressure.
It is important to keep in mind that Iran had originally proposed to refuel the Tehran research reactor through purchasing fuel assemblies from international providers, including the United States -- in fact, involving the United States was Iran’s idea of a confidence-building measure. There was a clear consensus within the Iranian leadership in support of this proposal, with President Ahmadinejad speaking about it publicly.
The United States responded with interest to Iran’s initiative but proposed, instead, that Iran ship most of Iran’s low enriched uranium stockpile outside the country for fabrication into fuel rods for the reactor in question. From an Iranian perspective, there are two potential flaws with this approach. First, Iran’s experience of prior cooperation with international actors on its nuclear program has been disappointing. During the 1970s, Iran invested more than $1 billion to build a French reactor which was contractually supposed to guarantee Iran access to that reactor’s fuel. But, when the Islamic Republic was established, France reneged. Now Iran is being called on to trust France, again, to return its fuel.
Second, at Iran’s current production rate for low enriched uranium, it would take Tehran nine to 12 months to replenish the uranium that would be sent out of the country under this deal, if it were sent out in a single batch. For serious national security planners in Tehran, whether they like Ahmadinejad or not, this is potentially problematic as it leaves almost a year’s window of increased vulnerability to an Israeli or U.S. military attack.
In Tehran, views are split, and it has nothing to do with reformists vs. hardliners, or the pro-Ahmadinejad camp vs. the anti-Ahmadinejad camp. It has to do with lack of confidence about U.S. and Israeli intentions toward the Islamic Republic as it is constituted, rather than as we wish it to be. In this regard, action by two Congressional committees this week to pass legislation authorizing additional U.S. unilateral sanctions against Iran and non-U.S. companies doing business there will only do further damage to Iranian perceptions of American intentions and President Obama’s seriousness about engaging Tehran.
Too often, Iran’s security concerns are dismissed in the United States and Israel as false or manufactured, re-enforcing the stereotype of Iranians as chronically duplicitous and unprepared to keep any commitment they enter into. These stereotypes are unfortunate for two reasons. First, they are wrong and simply not supported by the historical record. This is certainly not how Iran approached previous episodes of engagement with the United States – including two years of extremely constructive official talks between the United States and Iran over Afghanistan and al Qaida following the 9/11 attacks (talks in which I directly participated).
Second, these stereotypes are fundamentally racist. If someone were to criticize Israeli diplomacy by referring to rabbis lying and conspiring behind their beards -- as far too many commentators accuse Iran’s “mullahs” as lying and conspiring behind their beards -- we would rightly denounce that as an anti-Semitic stereotype.
We should not approach negotiations with Iran on the basis of stereotypes. We should approach these negotiations with a serious understanding of our own interests and an informed appreciation for the interests of the other side.
In beginning this process, the United States has two choices. One is continuing to insist on strict quantitative limits on the further expansion of Iran’s fuel cycle infrastructure as the price Iran must pay to continue talks, and on the complete suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities as the price Iran would have to pay for a longer-term deal.
This is clearly the approach preferred by some in Washington, some of Israel’s supporters here, and the current Israeli government. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear, publicly, that full suspension of Iran’s fuel-cycle development is the only acceptable outcome to nuclear dialogue with the Islamic Republic. But it is dangerous and delusionary. If, in the near term, the United States insists on strict quantitative limits on further development of Iran’s fuel cycle infrastructure, and, in the longer term, on zero enrichment in Iran, the negotiating process started in Geneva on October 1 will implode.
That implosion will put the United States on the path to policy failure as it seeks to impose what Sec Clinton likes to call “crippling” sanctions on Iran. And when the U.S. is unable to get Chinese or Russia, or even French, support for anything approaching “crippling” sanctions, that policy failure will increase the chances for military confrontation over Iran’s nuclear activities with all of the predictably profound consequences such a confrontation would have for the Middle East, especially for Israel.
The other, far more preferable, approach would entail the United States pursuing a genuinely workable diplomatic strategy towards Iran. With regard to the nuclear issue, this would mean stepping back from a quixotic quest for zero enrichment in Iran and, instead, seeking to identify monitoring arrangements for Iran’s nuclear program so that the proliferation risks associated with Iran’s program were tightly controlled.
Pursuing this strategy would also require embedding diplomatic efforts on the nuclear issue in a broader, comprehensive, strategic framework for U.S.-Iranian discussions. Such discussions would deal with the full range of bilateral differences between Washington and Tehran, with the aim of reaching what I have often described as a U.S.-Iranian Grand Bargain. This is something which Iran very much wants. It is also something that would be very strongly in the interests of the United States and Israel.
The idea of a U.S.-Iranian “grand bargain” starts from the premise that Iran is not just a problem to be managed. In much the same way that President Richard Nixon understood that strategic rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China was imperative for American interests in the early 1970s, strategic rapprochement with the Islamic Republic is now truly imperative for American interests in the Middle East.
At this point, the United States cannot achieve any of its high-priority objectives in the greater Middle East -- in the Arab-Israeli arena, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, with regard to energy security, etc. -- without a more productive relationship with the Islamic Republic.
Of course, the opening to China had important implications for America’s established allies in Asia -- most notably, Japan -- in much the same the way some fear an American opening to Iran would have negative implications for Israel. But the U.S.-Japan alliance not only survived America’s rapprochement with China -- in fact, the consolidation of a largely cooperative Sino-American relationship profoundly reduced the security threat to Japan emanating from China.
For those in Israel and her supporters here who believe that a U.S.-Iranian “grand bargain” would inevitably be struck at the expense of Israel’s interests, I would say two things: First, Israel’s interest would also be profoundly well served by a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement that helped to settle the unresolved tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict, put Iraq and Afghanistan on more stable trajectories, and effectively eliminated the risk of U.S.-Iranian (or Israeli-Iranian) military confrontation.
Second, without U.S.-Iranian rapprochement, the United States will not be able to achieve any of its high-priority goals in the Middle East. This would be bad for Israel, which needs credible and effective American leadership in the region to maintain a stable balance of power, address serious threats, and ensure its safety and survival. We should think hard about what Israel’s strategic situation would be like if the United States is seen, to a much greater extent than is already the case, as a declining power, unable to deliver.

Vank Cathedral, Isfahan, Iran

>> Iran does not owe anybody any sort of confidence building measure

2009-11-24T11:06:00.000-08:00

Iran does not owe anybody any sort of confidence building measure
by Bill Rowe

source: Huffington Post
October 28, 2009

Iran does not owe anybody any sort of confidence building measure because it is Iran that has been on the receiving end of hypocritical and illegal sanctions and related misinformation. No way should it agree to send its low enriched uranium out of the country in one shipment since it will not get the enriched fuel back without it being held hostage to other illegal conditions. The shipping of the uranium in small batches only as the enriched reactor fuel is received is the only way to go. Refusal by the partners to accept that arrangement only highlights the other agenda of eliminating Iran's enrichment activity. If the deal sinks, then Iran should go ahead and enrich the fuel to 20% and make the fuel elements themselves.In any case the required amount of low enriched uranium will be used up and not available for weapons use, and Iran gets the additional learning experience of expanding their enrichment capability to higher levels.Iran needs to give the partners the polite diplomatic middle-finger salute and go ahead with building their own fuel.

Natanz nuclear facility in Iran

>> Real Breakthrough at Iran Peace Talks? Maybe, but US still lying

2009-11-24T09:01:00.000-08:00

Real Breakthrough at Iran Peace Talks? Maybe, but US still lying
by Gareth Porter (interview with Scott Horton)
source: CASMII
Sunday, October 25, 2009

Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for Inter Press Service, discusses the counterproductive coercive diplomacy in U.S./Iran talks, political pressure brought to bear by U.S. allies on the 2007 Iran NIE, new evidence of manufactured controversy about the Qom facility and Iran’s well-reasoned decision to halt disclosure under the additional protocol to their Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA in 2007.
Listen to the interview here:
http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/10/23/gareth-porter-68/

US military basis around Iran

>> Hour of decision on Iran

2009-11-24T01:25:00.000-08:00

Hour of decision on Iran
by Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Source: Asia Times Online
October 23, 2009

On Wednesday, an upbeat head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamad ElBaradei, reported that after two-and-a-half days of intense negotiations in Vienna covering many technical issues, serious progress had been made on a proposal to provide nuclear assistance for a small research reactor in Tehran.
He added that the IAEA had presented the parties - Iran, Russia, the United States and France - with a draft agreement that needed to be answered by the end of this week.
Diplomats say the UN atomic watchdog's draft proposes that Russia process Iranian low-enriched uranium to the 20% required by a research reactor in Tehran and for France to turn it into fuel form, Agence France-Presse reported.
Echoing ElBaradei's sentiment, Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, termed the talks "constructive and successful", although he was careful to emphasize that, contrary to reports in some Western media, no final decision had been made. At the time of writing, momentum appeared to be growing in Tehran against any hasty decision.
"The deadline on Friday was not agreed at the meeting and was Mr ElBaradei's own opinion," a Tehran source tells the author. The source added that in his opinion, "Extra time is definitely needed, at least to avoid the impression that Iran jumped into a fateful decision that weighs so heavy and needs to be studied very carefully from all angles."
This view appears to be shared by a number of Iranian lawmakers, including Mohammad Reza Bahonar, the deputy speaker of the Majlis (parliament), who said the terms of the deal, under which Iran would ship its uranium abroad and receive processed nuclear fuel in return, were "not acceptable".
There is also no consensus in Tehran regarding the relatively high volume of Iran's low-enriched uranium (LEU) - 1,200 kilograms or equivalent to 80% of Iran's LEU stockpile - targeted for outward shipment.
Given its past experiences with some international contracts, there is a great deal of concern in Iran that no matter how firm the modalities of the latest agreement on paper, when push comes to shove for actual delivery, there may be footdragging. This is something the Tehran reactor, critical for the treatment of cancer and other serious illnesses, cannot afford.
"Let's not forget that the last delivery of nuclear fuel for this reactor took five years. The IAEA approved it in 1988, and yet it was not delivered to us until 1993," said a Tehran University political science professor.
The five-megawatt thermal reactor has been running at about 60% of its full capacity because of low fuel, which is expected to run out by late 2010 or early 2011. There is therefore little time to waste on lengthy negotiations, one reason why Iran has warned that unless a decision is reached soon, it will continue to produce the fuel, which requires medium-enriched uranium of 19.75%. This despite prohibitive costs and technical challenges.
"Iran should opt for a phased agreement, a stage-by-stage deal," said a Tehran analyst, Rahmatollah Ghahramanpour. He also raises questions about France's participation as a subcontractor for manufacturing uranium rods after Iran's LEU is further refined by Russia. Another analyst, Hassan Beheshtipour, considers the Vienna talks as a "test of goodwill", especially on the part of the US and France.
It is also a test of political will, in light of the wealth of nay-sayers to the proposed deal in Tehran, Washington and various European capitals.
"The quantitative disagreement, on the level of Iran's uranium mass to be exported [for further enrichment] can be negotiated, but the qualitative subject that is connected to the big picture cannot," the Tehran professor cited above elaborates.
"Any agreement on the Tehran reactor will have a great deal of symbolic significance because it alters the climate of hostility between Iran and the US and this in turn makes it more difficult for opponents of Iran at the US Congress to push for new sanctions." In other words, this may leave the core issue, Iran's right to enrich uranium, intact, At the same time, it defuses the "Iran threat" by removing the bulk of the net nuclear product that Iran could conceivably further develop for weaponization.
All the same, the quantitative issue may prove troublesome. The Tehran reactor has sustained itself since 1993 through the delivery of about 116 kilograms of Argentina's near-20% enriched uranium, roughly equivalent to 1,169 kilograms of Iran's LEU.
At its optimum capacity, the reactor's annual need is about 18 kilograms of enriched uranium, equivalent to 180 kilograms of LEU, so for a 10-year supply for the reactor operating at the normal 70-80% of full capacity, it would require the shipment of nearly all of Iran's 1,500 LEU. This is one of the reasons why lawmakers such as Bahonar insist that foreign assistance to the "purely humanitarian" reactor that makes medical isotopes should not hinge on the use of Iran's LEU. After all, it has taken Iran several years to be able to put together its present 1,500 kilograms of LEU.
Nevertheless, given that this idea was initially floated by Iran and termed by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad as a "litmus test for the international community", it is now relatively difficult for Tehran to backtrack. Also, Iran would not want to lose the opportunity to improve its image by being less "nuclear-weapon capable".
This is especially so, given the crisis with its nuclear-armed neighbor, Pakistan, in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Iran. (See Iran's nuclear talks also hit Asia Times Online, October 21, 2009.)
Commenting on the latest proposal, the Tehran professor points to an unpleasant trade-off between Iran's security and civilian needs. "Talk about nuclear ambiguity. This is a deal that fulfills some needs but in the same breath creates new needs and both positively and negatively effects a number of other considerations, definitely not a perfect scenario."
Perhaps ElBaradei was closer to the mark when he painted the draft agreement as a huge confidence-building step toward "normalizing Iran's relations with the international community". The "historic agreement" may be ElBaradei's last hurrah, as he steps down at the end of next month following his second four-year term. He said he was "crossing my fingers" over the draft, but it could be that it will be left to his successor, Japan's Yukiya Amano, to see the deal through.
As it happens, Amano's Japan recently signed a similar deal with Russia for enriched uranium, not to overlook a similar US-Russia deal earlier this year. This would indicate that an ordinary matter pertaining to a medical reactor fully monitored by the IAEA should not be subjected to such great hype.
Yet ElBaradei may have undercut his own efforts by tying the Iran draft to "the complete normalization" of Iran's relations with the outside world, and even with the "defusion" of the Iran nuclear crisis. Delinking the two may be a better approach.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.

Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art

>> UN Security Council strongly condemns terrorist attacks in Iran

2009-11-24T01:21:00.000-08:00

UN Security Council strongly condemns terrorist attacks in Iran
October 21, 2009

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 20 (Xinhua) -- The UN Security Council on Tuesday voiced its strong condemnation of "the deadly terrorist attacks" in the border city of Pishin in Iran, which left at least57 people dead and 150 others injured.
The condemnation came as Vietnamese UN Ambassador Le Luong Minh, who holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council, was reading a prepared statement to the press here.
"The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the deadly terrorist attack that occurred in the border city of Pishin in Iran on Oct. 18, 2009, causing at least 57 deaths and150 injuries," the statement said.
"The members of the Security Council expressed their condolences to the families of the victims, as well as to the people and the Government of Iran," the statement said.
"The members of the Security Council underlined the need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice, and urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate actively with the Iranian authorities in this regard," said the statement.
"The members of the Security Council reaffirmed the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts," the statement said. "The members of the Security Council reminded States that they must ensure that measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law."
"The members of the Security Council reiterated their determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations," the statement added.
On Monday, a statement, issued by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson here, said, "the secretary-general strongly condemns yesterday's terrorist attacks in the Sistan-Baluchistan province of Iran which resulted in the death of a large number of people and many injured."
"He extends his condolences to the families of the victims and to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and wishes those injured a full recovery," the statement said.
Early on Sunday, a deadly bomb attack occurred in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan near Iran's border with Pakistan, killing at least 40 people, including a number of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders, and wounded 30 others, reports said.
The Sunni rebel group Jundallah (God's soldiers) has claimed responsibility for the deadly suicide attack, the reports said.
Expressing condolence over the incident, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that the "terrorist attack" was carried out by the foreign-bound criminals.

>> Iran's nuclear talks also hit

2009-11-24T01:10:00.000-08:00

Iran's nuclear talks also hit
by Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Source: Asia Times
Tuesday, October 20, 2009

It is testimony to the complexity of United States-Iran relations that on Monday news from Vienna suggested solid progress in talks on Iran's nuclear program, even while Iranian officials pointed fingers at the "Great Satan" and its junior partner, Great Britain, as being ultimately responsible for bombings in Iran on Sunday.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, said the talks on Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium had got "off to a good start". Delegates from Iran, the US, Russia and France talked for two-and-a-half hours and agreed to meet again on Tuesday morning. "Most technical issues have been discussed," ElBaradei said. There are reports that the US is seriously studying the idea of delivering nuclear fuel for a Tehran medical reactor. [1]
Washington and London, meanwhile, have categorically denied any role in the attack in Pishin in southeastern Sistan-Balochistan province that killed 49 people, including seven Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders and several tribal leaders.
The attack is widely attributed to Jundallah, a Sunni group that operates from bases inside Pakistan's Balochistan province and which has been accused of receiving financial and material support from US intelligence as part of a low-intensity proxy warfare against Tehran. Echoing a statement released by the IRGC, Iran's speaker of parliament (Majlis), Ali Larijani, referred to the attack as "an outcome of US measures" in the region.
Consequently, irrespective of the official denial in Washington, a major new dent in the already troubled US-Iran relationship has emerged that will surely linger and which has the potential to erode the recent gains in confidence-building between the countries.
"This terrorist group is like al-Qaeda and is supported by the US because it serves as a pressure group against Iran, with the intention of destabilizing Iran," Hamid Reza Taraghi, a deputy executive of the powerful Iranian group, Hezbe Motalefeh Eslami, told the Iranian press, articulating what is fast turning into a "groupthink" in Tehran. He added, "Iran has no confidence in any promises by the US and cannot count on its commitments in the international arena. There has been no change of US policy toward Iran."
On the other hand, the hardline Iranian daily, Kayhan, refers to the attack as "Mossad's new crime", accusing the Israeli secret service of masterminding the "coordinated attacks" that may have benefited from satellite tracking of the IRGC commanders whose convoy was blasted by a suicide bomber.
Many analysts in Tehran are convinced that more than the US and/or Great Britain, Israel is actively involved in propping up Jundallah, in parallel to Iran's influence with Hezbollah in Lebanon. (See Hezbollah spices up Israel-Iran mix Asia Times Online, June 3, 2009.)
According to a Tehran University political science author who wishes to remain anonymous, the Pishin attackers had multiple objectives. "First, they wanted to prevent a crucial unity meeting between Shi'ites and Sunnis in Sistan-Balochistan. Second, they wanted to exacerbate tension between the central government and the Balochi minority. Third, they wanted to cause new tensions between Iran and Pakistan, whose government is backed by the US and Saudi Arabia. Fourth, they timed their attacks with the critical nuclear meeting in Vienna to thwart any agreement on Iran's proposal for nuclear fuel for the reactor in Tehran."
There is a widespread belief in Tehran that the Pishin attack, especially as it claimed the lives of five IRGC commanders, could not possibly have taken place without the knowledge, and perhaps complicity, of Western and/or Israeli intelligence.
This sentiment is apparently shared by Russia, in light of the quick response by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who sent his condolences together with a firm message that Russia was prepared to cooperate with Iran against terrorism. This was in sharp contrast to the silence of US President Barack Obama.
"Iran is now baited into security tensions with nuclear-armed Pakistan and that simply strengthens the hands of the hardliners in Iran who believe that Iran needs a nuclear shield," the same Tehran professor told the author.
He predicts a "perception shift" against Obama in Iran that will result in Iran's "depersonalizing the new relations, mainly because this shows a frozen hostile thinking about Iran in Washington that does not appreciate and, actually takes advantage of, a more flexible and creative approach by Iran to nuclear, regional and global issues.
"There is now a serious crisis of Iranian confidence in Mr Obama and many people are asking: is he really in charge and who calls the shots on US policy in the region? Did Mossad pull this off without notifying the White House, or in cahoots with them [the US]?"
As a result, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who has adopted a more moderate stance towards the US compared to his first term in office, may now have no choice but to be more defiant and hardline, thereby increasing tensions with the US, Great Britain and Israel. In terms of Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zardari telephoned Ahmadinejad, promising to work out a timetable to go after Jundallah through joint security cooperation.
Unless Zardari makes good on his promise, the chances of new Iranian operations featuring cross-border attacks on Jundallah bases inside Pakistan are relatively high. Nor should one overlook the possibility of an Iranian retaliation, principally against coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Clearly, the likelihood of Iran's military showing its teeth diminishes the chances of a meaningful breakthrough in the stalemated US-Iran relations. Unlike in the past few weeks, Tehran is now in no mood to appease Obama. This would be particularly with respect to his demand that Iran open its enrichment facility near Qom for IAEA inspections by October 25, yet this is inextricably linked with Iran's pressing need for nuclear fuel for its medical reactor in Tehran.
In a sign of Iran's new mood, reports from Vienna indicate that Iran has decided against dealing directly with France on the fuel delivery issue, preferring instead to focus on its negotiations with the US and Russia, while vowing to commence the production of highly enriched uranium required by the Tehran reactor in the event that the talks fail.
This is a definite fork in the road, and the fate of Obama's engagement policy with Iran now hangs by a thread.
Note 1. See Today's nuclear talks test President Barack Obama's policy of engaging Iran ABC News, October 19, 2009.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.

Caspian Sea, Province of Gilan, Northern Iran

>> Masoleh12 pictures from history photos on webshots

2009-11-24T01:02:00.000-08:00

Masoleh12 pictures from history photos on webshots

>> Bolton suggests nuclear attack on Iran

2009-11-23T22:22:00.000-08:00

Bolton suggests nuclear attack on Iran
by Daniel Luban

source: IPS

Sunday, October 18, 2009

This Friday, the American Enterprise Institute will host an event addressing the question “Should Israel attack Iran?” The event includes, among others, Iran uberhawk Michael Rubin and infamous “torture lawyer” John Yoo, but the real star is likely to be John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador whose right-of-Attila views left him an outcast even within the second Bush administration. (Bolton was eventually forced out when it became clear that he would be unable to win Senate confirmation for the U.N. post.)
If Bolton’s recent rhetoric is any indication, his AEI appearance may accomplish the formidable feat of making Michael Rubin sound like a dove. Discussing Iran during a Tuesday speech at the University of Chicago, Bolton appeared to call for nothing less than an Israeli nuclear first strike against the Islamic Republic. (The speech, sponsored by the University Young Republicans and Chicago Friends of Israel, was titled, apparently without a trace of irony, “Ensuring Peace.”)
“Negotiations have failed, and so too have sanctions,” Bolton said, echoing his previously-stated belief that sanctions will prove ineffectual in changing Tehran’s behavior. “So we’re at a very unhappy point — a very unhappy point — where unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future.”
Bolton made clear that the latter option is unacceptable. “There are some people in the administration who think that it’s not really a problem, we can contain and deter Iran, as we did the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I think this is a great, great mistake and a dangerously weak approach…Whatever else you want to say about them, at least the Soviets believed that they only went around once in this world, and they weren’t real eager to give that up — as compared to a theological regime in Tehran which yearns for life in the hereafter more than life on earth…I don’t think [deterrence] works that way with a country like Iran.”
While Bolton coyly refused to spell out his conclusion, the implications of his argument were clear. If neither negotiations, nor sanctions, nor deterrence are options, then by his logic the only remaining option is for “Israel…to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program.”
Of course, it is nothing new for Bolton and his neoconservative allies to threaten an Israeli strike against Iran. But Bolton’s use of the “n-word” is, I believe, new for him, and marks a significant rhetorical escalation from the hawks. An Israeli strike, nuclear or otherwise, without U.S. permission remains unlikely. But as it often the case, I suspect that Bolton’s intention is less to give an accurate description of reality than it is to stake out positions extreme enough to shift the boundaries of debate as a whole to the right.

>> Steps Toward Crafting a Nuclear Deal With Iran

2009-11-23T21:15:00.000-08:00

Steps Toward Crafting a Nuclear Deal With Iran
by Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Source: World Politics Review
Saturday, October 17, 2009

On Oct. 19, at a multilateral meeting in Vienna focused on nuclear transparency, U.S. and Iranian representatives will meet for the second time in a month in the hopes of working out the modality by which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will inspect Iran's newly revealed enrichment facility known as Fardo, near the holy city of Qom.
This particular issue is relatively straightforward, and the negotiations will likely result in the Fardo facility being placed under the IAEA's regular regime of inspections, already firmly in place with respect to Iran's other nuclear facilities. But it is nonetheless tied in with the more complicated issue of Iran's request for assistance with its medical research reactor in Tehran, which will run out of nuclear fuel by the end of 2010. The request was initially floated by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his recent tour of the United Nations in New York.
Concerning the latter, the U.S., Russia and France, in coordination with the IAEA, have been secretly developing a plan for the delivery of high-enriched uranium (HEU) to the Tehran reactor for several months. Under the plan, which was broached at the last meeting with Iranian negotiators on Oct. 2, Iran would ship its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium to Russia for further refinement -- from 4 percent to the 20 percent required by the Tehran reactor -- with subsequent conversion to nuclear fuel cells taking place in France. The timetable and modality of the transaction, which has yet to be agreed upon, would be under the full aegis of IAEA.
But despite Russia and France's declared willingness to proceed with this plan, it has been hotly debated in the U.S., with some hawkish pundits, such as John Bolton, opposing it on the grounds that, a) it puts a seal of approval on Iran's enrichment program, which is the subject of several U.N. Security Council resolutions; and (b) it actually raises the risk of Iranian proliferation.
The problems with Bolton's objections are three-fold.
First, the fact that the issue arises at all serves as a reminder of Iran's non-diversion of its stockpile of HEU already at the Tehran reactor, as verified by repeated IAEA inspections. Any new delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran will likewise be under the IAEA's rigorous surveillance.
Second, Bolton and other critics of the Obama administration's engagement policy toward Iran miss the point that Iran has already mastered the nuclear fuel cycle. In the event that Iran's demand for outside assistance for the Tehran reactor is turned down or subjected to a lengthy delay, Iran will have no recourse but to undertake the financial and technological challenge of producing the nuclear material itself -- a comparatively more anxiety-causing scenario as far as the West is concerned. Not only that, should the West renege on its NPT obligation to assist Iran's medical reactor -- which is critical to the nation's medical needs, including cancer treatment -- Iran may retaliate by decreasing, instead of increasing, its cooperation with the IAEA. That explains the linkage between the two main subjects of multilateral discussions in Vienna on Oct. 19.
Third, Bolton conveniently glosses over a key advantage of the plan to ship out a portion of Iran's LEU -- namely, that it reduces the quantity of Iran's stockpile that could theoretically be diverted to proliferation purposes.
Bolton's objections also ignore the protean value of confidence-building generated as a result of a successful good-faith negotiation, which could potentially culminate in a new multilateralization of nuclear cooperation with Iran. Russia is currently Iran's sole nuclear partner. The proposed multilateral enrichment plan actually opens a new vista for the entry of other players to the Iranian "nuclear market."
That conceivably includes the U.S., which built the Tehran reactor prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but afterwards reneged on its contractual obligation to deliver the nuclear fuel for it. That prompted Tehran to seek alternative suppliers, chiefly Argentina. (Argentina's nuclear cooperation with Iran -- which entailed plans to train Iranian scientists, as well as the construction of a uranium dioxide conversion plant and a fuel fabrication facility for Iran -- came to an abrupt halt as a direct result of the July 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires.)
For all the United States' talk of "success" or "failure" in Iran nuclear talks, a multilateral -- and robust -- agreement for the delivery of HEU for the Tehran reactor clearly constitutes a specific benchmark that in all likelihood will have positive ripple effects on the broader, macro issues of concern regarding Iran's nuclear program. It will boost Tehran's flexibility, enhance its mood for cooperation with the IAEA, and even increase the IAEA's chance of persuading Tehran to re-adopt the intrusive Additional Protocol.
Iran implemented such an agreement without ratifying it in 2003 and abided by it for two years. Tehran suspended the Additional Protocol after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2005 election victory, arguing at the time that the West had not lived up to its part of the deal by "normalizing" Iran's nuclear file, as stipulated in the 2007 Iran-IAEA Workplan. The six "outstanding issues" in that document were successfully resolved in Iran's favor according to the IAEA's February 2008 report.
The upcoming meeting represents an exceptional opportunity to achieve a timely breakthrough in the Iran nuclear stalemate. By adopting a sequential approach focused on establishing progressive stages of confidence-building, the West has the best chance of de-escalating and hopefully resolving this potentially dangerous crisis, instead of exacerbating it through a one-dimensional, coercive diplomacy.

Kaveh Afrasiabi has taught political science at Tehran University and was a researcher at two Tehran think tanks, Institute For Political and International Studies and Center for Strategic Research. He is the author of several books on Iran's foreign and nuclear policies. His latest book, co-edited with Iran's former Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Maleki, is entitled "Reading in Iran's Foreign Policy After September 11."

>> When 5+1 = 1+1

2009-11-23T21:12:00.000-08:00

When 5+1 = 1+1
by Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Source: Asia Times
October 8, 2009

With the "Iran Six" nations agreeing at their meeting in Geneva last week to hold further talks on the Iran nuclear standoff, the chances of a breakthrough have increased considerably.
The "Iran Six" - also known as the "Five plus One", includes the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - plus Germany.
Equally important is the relatively surprising news that Russia, France and perhaps even the US had agreed in principle to assist Iran with the procurement of the medium-enriched uranium that Tehran needs for a small research reactor.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also told the Russian news agency Interfax after the Geneva meeting that a scheme had been proposed for Iran to send low-enriched uranium to Russia to create fuel rods for its medical research.
The Geneva decisions have opened the door for European participation in Iran's nuclear program, hitherto monopolized by Russia, which is Iran's sole nuclear partner. Should France, which has been actively trying to get a foot in the Middle East nuclear market, succeed, it would also be a boon for French diplomacy, due to the diplomatic and symbolic value attached to such a venture.
It is conceivable to imagine other areas of cooperation, such as nuclear waste management, where the US in particular could give tremendous assistance to Iran, assuming that the nuclear crisis is resolved within a framework acceptable to all.
In the US, the Barack Obama administration has come under fire from blistering right-wing attacks, with accusations that Obama was duped by the Iranians in Geneva. This has been reflected in a spate of newspaper and TV commentaries that raise serious questions about Obama's Iran policy.
Several opinion pieces in prominent newspapers labeled Iran as the "winner" in the Geneva talks, claiming that without giving up much, Tehran managed to gain serious concessions. This interpretation has been furthered by various headlines in the Iranian press boasting of Iran's success in Geneva.
These spins belie the fact that the process is ongoing and the threat of new sanctions on Iran is still alive. Also, any breakthrough in the talks can only be sustained if both sides are kept satisfied, that is, a win-win situation rather than a win-lose situation.
That means that Iran's incremental gain at the initial Geneva talk should be correctly interpreted from a process approach as simply a part of a puzzle that would need to be in sync with all the necessary elements of a breakthrough. In the event of the latter, the nuclear standoff would be eventually put to rest, Iran's nuclear file normalized, sanctions lifted, and troubled US-Iran relations would be put on the path of normalization.
The latter requires a more in-depth dialogue that would allow more confidence-building measures between the US and Iran, without which the initial gains will disappear. Confidence-building is a tricky business that can be unraveled by the negative influence of nay-sayers.
For instance, some have attacked Iran, accusing it of duplicity. They have warned the Obama administration of the perils of making any nuclear deal with Iran short of disbanding its nuclear fuel cycle. There is almost no mention of the legal framework of the dialogue that figures prominently in the background.
That is, the fact that Iran is entitled to possess a peaceful nuclear program - including a fuel cycle - under the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which it is a signatory, as long as it is covered by the International Atomic Energy Agency's surveillance and safeguard mechanisms.
Criticism that the West's consent to further enrich Iran's uranium for a Tehran reactor is a "step in the wrong direction" by giving legitimacy to Iran's enrichment activities is not justified. It overlooks the protean value of nuclear cooperation with Iran, sanctioned by the articles of the NPT, that would add important layers of confidence-building.
Compared to Obama, who referred approvingly of the Geneva talks as a "constructive beginning", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been more reserved, confining herself to brief comments that highlight the "door being opened".
The White House and some of the branches of the government, including the US Congress, may not see eye-to-eye on Iran, which could lead to contradictory behavior with a potentially negative impact on the dialogue process with Iran.
The Obama administration needs to be careful to extricate itself from various "middlemen", such as European diplomats wanting to chart courses of action by the US on Iran while promoting their own separate sets of interests.
Thus the Geneva talks, as they featured a bilateral Iran-US dialogue, may turn out to be more significant than the formal multilateral talks that preceded them.
Direct one-on-one dialogue, unencumbered by the influence of third parties, is what is needed to promote the cause of US-Iran ties, irrespective of how some European governments, such as Britain, press to maintain their previous privileges derived from the US's "outsourcing" of the Iran issue.
In other words, a re-interpretation of global politics, in tune with the post-hegemonic needs of the current world order, is needed to make sense of the significance of Iran-US talks, given the Western interventions in Iran's vicinity. A clean break from the cognitive road map that led to those interventions has yet to emerge from Obama, and this may prove to be a major lacuna of today's US talks with Iran.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.

Iranian Community Against War -ICAW

Our Mission Statement

>> IRAN & the MIDDLE EAST

>>> VANCOUVER: INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION ~ NO WAR ON IRAN!

>>> FEB 4, INATERNATIONAL ACTION: NO WAR ON IRAN!

List your activity HERE View Listof Activities HERE

(Alphabetical order by State)

1. Phoenix, AZ, 2pm atCesar Chavez Plaza, 200 W Washington.

2. Tucson, AZ 6pm atUnitarian Universalist Church, 4831 E. 22 St.

3. Los Angeles, CA 2pm at Westwood Fed Building, next to UCLAcampus.

4. Los Angeles, CANoon at Wilshire & Western Metro Stop.

5. San Francisco, CA,Noon at Powell & Market, BART Plaza

6. Truckee, CA Noon,at Donner Pass Rd/ Highway 89.

7. New Haven, CT11:00am at New Haven Green, 141 Church St

8. Tampa, FL, NoonMarch on McDill Air Force Base-CentComm, Rally at GandyBivd. & Dale Mabry Highway

9. Atlanta, GA 4:30 -5:30pm at CNN Center, Marietta & Centennial OlympicPark.

10. Honolulu, HI 7pmin Heart of Waikiki, Kalakaua Ave & SeasideAve

11. Des Moines, IA 6pmat Nollen Plaza, Des Moines Civic Center, 221 WalnutSt

12. Chicago, IL Noon atFederal Plaza

13. Champaign-Urbana,IL 2pm at Neil and Main St.

14. Boston, MA 1pm atTremont & Park St, March to Israeli consulate &Copley Square

15. Detroit MI 2pm atGrand Circus Park – Woodward Ave at Adams.

16. Kochville MI 12noon at Bay Rd & Tittabawassee Rd

17. Minneapolis, MN 3pm at 3rd St & Cedar Avenue South.

18. Albany NY Noon atWolf Road & Central Ave, March 1pm to mall recruitingstation.

19. Buffalo, NY 3pm atCity Hall Square, then marching.

20. NYC, NY 1pm atNorth end of Times Square - Duffy Square. March to theUS & Israeli missions to UN.

21. Rochester, NY 11amat The Public Market, 280 North UnionStreet

22. Saratoga, NY Noonat Broadway by Post Office, Weekly Vigil Site.

23. Columbus, OH6:30pm at Goodale St. & N. High St.

24. Defiance, OH Noonat Defiance County Courthouse, 221 ClintonStreet

25. Tulsa, OK Noon atSouthwest Corner of 41st and Yale Ave,

26. Harrisburg, PA Noonat State Capitol Steps, 3rd Street Side at North &Walnut

27. Philadelphia PANoon at 5th & Market, IndependenceHall.

28. Rock Hill,SC 7pm at Byrnes Auditorium at WinthropUniversity, 701 Oakland Ave.

29. Salt Lake City, UT3pm at Downtown Federal Building, 125 S. StateSt

30. Blacksburg VA 2 PM,Main Post Office.

31. Norfolk, VA 1pm atCity Hall Ave at Saint Paul Blvd.

32. Richmond VA, Noonat Federal Building.

33. Seattle, WA 1:30 atWestlake Center, March to Military processingcenter.

34. Milwaukee, WI Noon at East Capitol Dr.Bridge just east of Capitol Ave & HumboldBlvd.

35. Green Bay, WI Noonat Lambeau Field.

36. Washington DC Noonat Lafayette Square, White House

Feb 02 NO War on Iran Actions

1. Bloomington, IL5:30pm at Center for the Performing Arts 600 EastStreet

2. Oklahoma City, OK,4:30pm at Gold Dome corner, 1112 Northwest 23rdStreet

FEB 3 NO War on Iran Actions

1. Baltimore, MD. 5pmMcKelvin Sq, Pratt & Light Street

2. Raleigh, NC 4:30pmFederal Building, 310 New Bern Ave

3. Nashville TN 2pm,Nashville Legislative Plaza, 6th Ave & Deaderick St.

Other Countriesorganizing for NO War on Iran actions on Feb4:

Canada-

2. Lethbridge,AB 2pm, City Hall, 910 4th Ave. South

3. Vancouver,BC:Picket and rally in front of US consulate, downtown,3-6pm

Bangaldesh capital Dacca rally andmarch;

India message of actions in several cities includingCalcutta.

Ireland at Shannon Air Base, forward base forNATO,

Norway, Oslo, Rally initiated by Iranians in Diaspora,Supported by Peace Initative Norway, Party Red &others.

Group in Iran called House of Latin America, is contactinggroups internationally and urging activity in severalcountries.

>>> FEBRUARY 4, 2012 INTERNATIONAL ACTION: STOP WAR ON IRAN

Feb. 4 anti-war actions called to stop imperialist threats to Iran

>>> Why OWS Should Lead the "No Iran War!" Resistance

Why OWS Should Lead the "No Iran War!" Resistance

>>> IDEAS TO ORGANIZE ACTION AGAINST WAR ON IRAN IN UK!

What You Can Do to Stop a Catastrophic War against Iran

>>> CASMII STATMENT ON SANCTIONS & MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN

Key Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran

>>> RAMSEY CLARK AND UNAC STATEMENTS

Groups demand U.S. hands off Iran

>>> THE UNITED NATIONAL ANTI-WAR COALITION (STATEMENT) ON IRAN

>>> Iran, Venezuela Establish Joint Oil Company

>>> Israel's Bellicose Threats Against Iran

>>> Is Iran Producing Medical Isotopes?

>> Iran Is Paranoid and Israel Is Not (You're Kidding, Right?)

>> Vancouver >> New Sanctions Against Iran: New Diplomacy of War Mongering

>> An appeal to Antiwar Organizations & ...

>> Media Myths about Iran

>> Nuclear Decit: The Times and Iran

>> Never Mind the Facts, Let’s Have a War...

>> UN Sanctions Hit Hospitals: Iran Running Out of Life-Saving Isotopes

17. Minneapolis, MN 3pm at 3^rd St & Cedar Avenue South.

26. Harrisburg, PA Noonat State Capitol Steps, 3^rd Street Side at North &Walnut

27. Philadelphia PANoon at 5^th & Market, IndependenceHall.

3. Nashville TN 2pm,Nashville Legislative Plaza, 6^th Ave & Deaderick St.