Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Salehi said today that the Islamic Republic has proposed to Russia that the two countries create a joint consortium to fabricate fuel for the Bushehr reactor and other nuclear power plants that Iran plans to build in the future. Salehi reportedly told IRNA that the consortium would “do part of the work in Russia and part of it in Iran”. Salehi said that “Iran does not intend to produce the whole amount of the fuel needed for its power plants on its soil”, but reiterated that “Tehran would not stop enrichment” and would “prove itself to be capable of producing uranium and transforming it into plates”.
Salehi’s proposal is the latest signal from Tehran that, as we have argued previously, “American/international ‘acceptance’ of Iranian enrichment is critical if nuclear talks with Iran…are to have any chance of lasting success”. It is further reaffirmation of our point that Iranian officials have “indicated their openness to multilateral cooperation on enrichment—so long as, under whatever cooperative arrangements might be established, uranium enrichment continues to take place inside Iran”.
Nasser Karimi of the Associated Press writes that the proposal described by Salehi “appeared to be an attempt by Tehran to gain some control over the nuclear fuel process at its Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant”. But we believe that the Iranian proposal is much more strategic in character. And, on that point, we were struck by a piece, “Russia and the Future of Nuclear Talks” that Kayhan Barzegar published yesterday in Iran Review.
Kayhan argues that, with the fueling of the reactor at Bushehr and the prospect that the Bushehr power plant will soon be on line, “Russia has practically conceded that Iran is a nuclear state”. This, in his view, will “enhance the peaceful nature and legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program”, creating a “new political atmosphere” in which Tehran will have “greater bargaining power in future nuclear talks”. In particular,
“As Iran gains membership to the world’s nuclear club, the direction and nature of negotiations will change. In the past, the West’s prime aim was for the most part based on bringing Iran’s nuclear activities to an overall halt. This time around, however, the focus of the talks will be on the preservation of the domestic fuel cycle capability, insisting upon independent enrichment on Iranian soil. In this respect, the role of Russia will be significant in future talks.
The main reason behind the current standoff between Iran and the West is that the Tehran approach to enriching uranium within the framework of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) aims to develop Iran’s domestic fuel cycle capability. Iran strives to connect the different aspects of the fuel cycle and preserving the independent fuel cycle, might be viewed as Iran’s trump card in any nuclear talks…In this respect, the Bushehr’s launching can be seen as a turning point in the Russian stance towards Iran’s nuclear activities.”
In Kayhan’s assessment, after the United Nations Security Council’s adoption of Resolution 1929 in June, “the Russians realized that uncritically pursuing the Western line would cause them to lose their importance in the diplomatic tug-of-war surrounding Iran’s nuclear program…Russia, as a result, in a shift of policy decided to launch the Bushehr plant”.
Kayhan points out that, while Russia hopes it will provide the annual installments of new fuel required by the Bushehr reactor, “according to the two sides’ agreement this is not obligatory”. More broadly, Russia will seek to be “the sole supplier of nuclear fuel to Iran and reap the benefits” and “to cooperate in the construction of Iran’s new nuclear reactors”. While cautioning that “Iran should not limit itself to or be dependent on Russian goodwill”, Kayhan argues that, in the current climate, Moscow has real incentives to be more forthcoming on nuclear cooperation with Tehran.
It is in this context that the strategic character of the Iranian proposal to Russia, as described by Salehi, becomes clear. We have anticipated for some time that “preservation of the domestic fuel cycle capability, insisting upon independent enrichment on Iranian soil” will be at the forefront of Iran’s agenda for the next round of nuclear discussions with the Vienna Group (the United States, Russia, and France, along with the International Atomic Energy Agency) and the P-5+1. A formal commitment by Russia to cooperate in the development of Iran’s enrichment capabilities would boost Tehran’s position on this issue.
Kayhan’s underscores that China has never been overly concerned about safeguarded enrichment in Iran:
“Beijing does not consider Tehran’s nuclear program a threat to its national and security interests and maintains that Iran is entitled to peaceful use of nuclear energy…China has set limits for cooperation with Western policies against Iran. From China’s perspective, initiating war against Iran or adopting tough and coercive sanctions will endanger China’s interests and are as a result seen as undesirable”.
In the wake of Bushehr’s launching, Kayhan anticipates that there will be “more differences of opinion” among European states about the appropriate goal of nuclear diplomacy with Iran: “The main challenge now facing the EU is whether to come to grips with the existing realities and accept the international legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, or insist on the effectiveness of past policies predicated on the adoption of tough sanctions to instigate negotiations with Iran.” As a result of these developments:
“The forging of a sustainable consensus between the 5+1 parties for the adoption of coercive policies against Iran will not be an easy task in future talks…International conditions have changed. The West is no longer capable of creating a united front against Iran and this has been proven by Iran’s ability to bypass sanctions. Russia, China, Turkey and even South Korea have major stakes in Iran and are, therefore, against unilateral sanctions against Iran…Sooner or later the great powers involved in the Iranian nuclear dispute should come to realize that Iran has crossed the line drawn by their demarcation of the traditional monopoly on enriching uranium. Thus they should try to find a genuinely sustainable solution in the course of future nuclear talks with Iran. With Bushehr’s launch and Iran becoming a member of the nuclear club, along with maintaining the strategic card of independent and domestic fuel cycle capabilities, Iran will have the upper hand in future talks. This of course may further deepen the rift between Iran and the West.”
We fully agree that the United States and its European partners should “try to find a genuinely sustainable solution in the course of future nuclear talks with Iran”, and that such a solution will necessarily entail Western acceptance of uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. But we are skeptical that the Obama Administration is prepared to move in this direction. Likewise, we are skeptical that Britain and France, the European states with the most rigid positions on the enrichment issue, are willing to “come to grips with the existing realities and accept the international legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear capabilities”. And, if those assessments are correct, the next round of nuclear discussions could indeed “further deepen the rift between Iran and the West”. But the enrichment issue is certainly not going away.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Rehmat,
Is Frederick Hof an idiot? Does Hof approve of the insane Israeli smashing of Lebanon, carried out in 2006 with full support of fools in the Bush administration?
Including, of course, the stunningly incompetent Condoleezza Rice. (She saw the smashing of Lebanon as the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”!)
Persian Gulf,
If the US were capable of acting in the best interests of the American people, the US would recognize Hamas and accept that Hezbollah is not an enemy of American but a necessary force to protect Lebanon from another insane Israeli smashing.
The US should have forced Israel out of the Golan Heights years ago!
Good relations between the US and Iran would be achievable, if the US acted in its own best interests. This might be possible if the American people came to comprehend the degree to which the US Congress is the stooge of the government of Israel.
imho,
I think it is a very large mistake to think that US foreign policy in the Middle East is about securing resources. In fact, this is a primary propaganda line put out by the armaments manufacturers, to dupe the American people. The US was the primary buyer of Iraq crude oil BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ.
China is the primary buyer of crude from Saudi Arabia.
The US could buy all the oil it needs from Iran, if the US wanted to do so.
Persian Gulf – I think you’re absolutely right, but I don’t have any particular Iran in mind; I have a particular US in mind. My angle is more that those US priorities you speak of must one day change. It appears impossible at the moment, but it all depends on political expediency, which in turn depends on public opinion and ……. nothing else.
As many have said, it is glaringly obvious that the US is going to hell in a handbasket with their current approach in the region. There is no way this cannot be understood at the highest level. Nothing will change though until it is politically feasible to change it. The “real” issue should be how to make it politically feasible.
James Canning, fyi,
Obama is sure an establishment president together with his administration mostly from CFR and Trilateral Commission (as always since 1973). How could it be otherwise ?!
That said, the following article shows how different they think but for now he had refused to put a red line.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52633
Extract:
Obama used an Apr. 1 interview with CBS News to distinguish between Iran’s “trying to develop the capacity to develop nuclear weapons” from a decision to actually possess nuclear weapons.
“They might decide that, once they have that capacity that they’d hold off right at the edge – in order not to incur more sanctions,” he observed. Obama talked about a new round of international sanctions as his response to that problem.
…
Gregory asked Clinton, “Is a nuclear-capable Iran as dangerous as a nuclear state of Iran?” to which Clinton answered, “Well, clearly weapons are more dangerous than potential.”
Gregory then asked Gates whether a nuclear-capable Iran is “just as dangerous as being a nuclear state to your mind?”
Gates answered, “Only in this respect: how you differentiate how far, how far have they gone? If they – if their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled?”
End of extract
fyi: “What is interesting for me is that EU is following US without any dissent. Do the Europeans not have strategic planners? Arfe they also in denial – just like US is?”
Once upon a time, there was “Pax Americana” mainly projected by CFR with the clear design that America alone should rule the world. Then came “Pax Universalis” with Trilateral Commission founded by David Rockefeller and his fellow Zbigniew Brzezinski projecting the view that US, Europe and Japan (now include more Asians) should cooperate to pull the strings in world affairs. I think at one point when Bush Jr. attacked Iraq without UNSC approval, US wanted to play alone. But that changed with the arrival of Obama. That changed the means without changing the long term policy but be assured that EU is on board now, however EU can’t speak with one voice. That’s why you don’t hear them as loud as US. But listening better, you can find for example France that is becoming even more hawkish than US.
I don’t know what you mean by “are they in denial”. In denial of what ? that the war on terror was a hoax from the start ? they already know that. That Iraq and Afghanistan end up as failed states? So what ? Resources must be secured in the long term so the empire can survive and they’re ready and paying the price.
Alan:
I think, the point of the divergence is here: that an independent nuclear Iran chooses her friends and interests on her own, and doesn’t not want to be necessarily a bulwark against any other state for the sake of the U.S global agenda. an independent Iran will most probably have profound disagreement with the U.S Mideast policies and priorities and the way the U.S conducts regional affairs. is the U.S ready to accept this type of Iran in the most strategic region of the world?
I assume you are having an Iran of 1950s and 1960s in mind. that Iran will remain a dream for the U.S officialdom for the time being.
Scott
“Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani — in a shift from his comments last Sunday that Iran would negotiate with anyone in the world except the US — has said that the country has never ruled out talks with the 5+1 Powers (US, Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany) or the Vienna Group (the US, Russia, France, and the International Atomic Energy Agency).”
Funny -Scott, do you see now – remember what I wrote before, and do you now understand what Jang-e-Akhondi is, you need to have a much better understanding of the culture, to capture how delicately this is done and who really this is meant for. Of course as said before, Jang-e-Zargari is much simpler to perform.
Frederick Hof, a senior adviser to US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, has threatened Lebanese Army Christian commander Jean Kahwajim that should his soldiers kill another Israeli Lt. Col. Dov Harari in a border clash – Israel Occupation Force (IOF) would annihiliate Lebanese army to its last soldier within four hours….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/israel-in-2006-we-played-nice-guys/
A record number of people are living on government handouts in the US, as one out of six Americans now gets various anti-poverty supports, including food stamps.
A survey of state data by daily USA TODAY released on Monday showed that more than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid — the federal-state program designed mainly to help the poor. That is an increase of at least 17 percent from December 2007, when the economic recession started.
“Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record,” said Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates.
Government data for May indicates that the number of the people getting food stamps has surged to 40 million, a rise of almost 50 percent during the economic downturn.
Compared with 2007, nearly 10 million receive unemployment insurance, which shows a 4 percent rise.
Meanwhile the number of the people who are on welfare program has grown to 4.4 million, an 18 percent increase during the recession.
According to the report, the steady growth in safety-net programs is mainly due to the recession that has increased the number of the people who are qualified to get support under existing rules.
I should mention here that Speigel closed its interview with Mottaki by spounting some classic neocon rubbish: “The international community is extremely alarmed in light of Iran’s ncuelar activities. It seems to be one minute before midnight.”
The Iranian FM replied: “No. On my watch it’s one o’clock. . .”
fyi,
If Obama is an “establishment” president, then anyone able to get elected in the US is an “establishment” president.
I think you see a unity of opinion within the American “establishment” that in fact does not exist. Ahmadinejad commented on that fact not so long ago (split opinion that obtains).
I do think Obama is over-impressed (and somewhat intimidated) by American generals. He should bear in mind that if Kennedy had listened to his generals during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, world war likely would have been the result.
What do you mean by a “cheap deal” with Iran?
James Canning:
I cannot comment on the inner life of Mr. Obama.
I imagine that he is interested in a cheap deal with Iran (as cheap as he can).
Such a cheap, minimal cost (to uS) is not on the table.
And it won’t.
And Gates and Clinton have put in place (recommended to Mr. Obama) the policy that makes sense within US Establishment.
Mr. Obama is an establishment president, no change will come from him.
If he were a genuine change agent, he would have put in place a review process to map out a reduction of US (over)committment abroad.
Spiegel online today has an interview with Mottaki, in which the Iranian foreign minister says “We think its beneath the dignity of the German people to support a certain U.S. policy.” and “I think the best thing would be fore [the EU] to reconize this right [LEU production] within the framework of the appropriate provisions and regulations.”
Mottaki also called for expanding the P5+1 to include other countries, clearly meaning Brazil and Turkey, and that Iran wants to proceed with the nuclear fuel exchange.
fyi,
The Iranian foreign minister, Mottaki, is quoted today as saying the West “asserts that Iran may have the intention of making nuclear weapons, and punished our nation based on the claim that Iran has such intentions.”
Clearly this statement is “bang on the money” (correct entirely).
Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates intentionally make threats of military action against Iran because they are actively seeking to subvert the genuine desire of Obama to engage with Iran and achieve better relations? Are Gates and Clinton stooges of Israeli warmongers and the neocons?
James Canning:
Gates and Clinton are not blundering.
This is the policy that they have crafted because they also know that US differences with Iran cannot be resolved; i.e. demands of each from the other cannot be met.
As I have stated numerous times before until the United States planners in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department acknwoledge – at least to themselves – certain facts on the ground there will be no change.
What is interesting for me is that EU is following US without any dissent. Do the Europeans not have strategic planners? Arfe they also in denial – just like US is?
Neil M.,
I completely agree that the promoters of “missile defence” systems essentially are duping the ignorant American taxpayers, and in effect the effort has been a colossal scam.
We should bear in mind that Nikita Krushchev wanted to suspend the arms race, and was preparing to propose the USSR and the US do so, at the Vienna summit planned for early in the Kennedy administration. Then F G Powers was shot down in his spy plane, and Eisenhower refused to give the apology demanded by Krushchev. The arms race could have been avoided.
Iranian@Iran,
The Iranian foreign ministry has made clear a significant change in attitude on the part of the US is what is needed to enable direct US-Iran negotiations to take place. To me, it seems obvious that Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates blunder badly when they make threats of possible military action if Iran continues its “nuclear programme” – - without saying just what the specific problem is. They should be saying the US has no problem with Iranian production of LEU, provided sufficient transparency is assured.
Trying to bring change from outside in Iran – specially as what was done with the so called Green Movement – is actually guaranteeing that no change will happen. Whether intentionally or not is another debate.
With the kind of Mousavi, a pillar of the regime, this is anything but a genuine change. This is a win-win situation. Either they lose so nothing is changed or they win which guarantee the change is minimal and in any way, this will bring trouble and misunderstanding in the though of Iranians, thus killing any hope and potential for a genuine uprising.
Yosef,
If you look at the numerous threads that Scott Lucas has commented on here, you’ll see that he is merely doing his “duty”. He is one of the hundreds if not thousands of people in the west who are receiving funding in order to bring about “change” in Iran. For Scott Lucas honesty is not an issue. Hence, You can’t change his views, because they are not bases on justice or “what is right”, they are based on personal interests.
Persian Gulf:
Thanks for your reply. This point interests me:
if there is any little chance that the U.S could come with the term of an independent nuclear Iran, that could only come true with a weak U.S, or a U.S that is confronted with so many problems and is isolated internationally. a McCain presidency could accelerate that eventuality
Could it not depend on what TYPE of nuclear Iran? Many agree that a confident, friendly, Iran could be a huge regional benefit to the US. While political realities in the US don’t let that debate even start, it is so obvious that it cannot be completely absent from the thought processes of those that matter in Washington.
RSH recently posted a link to a McCain v Obama foreign policy comparison in the NYT, published prior to the US presidential election. Tantalisingly, McCain clearly endorsed enrichment on Iranian soil, while Obama did not. It intrigues me that he had the confidence to say that, considering his support base and his party policy wonks.
Scott, there’s no evidence at allthat the elections weresrolwnand your insistence that matters of human rights etc have now supposedly eclipsed that issue still doesn’t change the fact that therehas never been any evidence that the elections were stolen.
An extraordinary world:
http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=186197
Scott Lucas
As usual you are merely fabricating a story. Iran’s position on direct talks with the US is clear: They won’t happen unless the US substantially chages it’s position. Period. Iranian talks with the 5+1 or the Vienna Group have nothing to do with direct talks.
Scott Lucas
Where were you when George Bush needed crusaders like you? As time goes by you become even worse! No “confessions” were posted and your government has failed to steal the elections.
Back on the topic of the thread:
*A flurry of comments out of Tehran on Sunday on the uranium enrichment discussions indicate Iran may be opening the door for direct talks with Washington and other countries….
Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani — in a shift from his comments last Sunday that Iran would negotiate with anyone in the world except the US — has said that the country has never ruled out talks with the 5+1 Powers (US, Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany) or the Vienna Group (the US, Russia, France, and the International Atomic Energy Agency).
Larijani insisted, “We have never ruled out talks, but sometime they left the table and showed misconduct,” presumably a reference to the breakdown of discussions after Iran met the 5+1 in Geneva last October.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast also said Tehran is ready for discussions: “We have expressed our readiness for talks with Vienna Group and we believe the way is paved for talks to start: Talks can be started sooner if they specify details and we reach an agreement on place and date of the negotiations.”
However, Mehmanparast added comments that muddled the apparent openness to talks:
If the US seriously seeks to revive relations with Iran, it should make changes in its attitude. Washington should prove that it will never repeat previous mistakes and will not pursue misguided and hostile policies towards the Iranian nation. We should sense a maturity in remarks and attitude of US officials and they should accept that rights of nations must be respected….There is no reason to prepare the grounds for establishing relations at the time the US attacks other countries, violates rights of nations and sees its interests in war and massacre….Such conduct will not work toward a country like Iran.
Iranian media are highlighting Thursday’s statement by US State Department spokesman P J Crowley, “We are hopeful that the constructive meetings, both at the IAEA and with the P5+1, can be set up in the next few weeks.”*
http://enduringamerica dot com/2010/08/29/iran-special-the-supreme-leader-and-one-voice-on-nuclear-talks-with-us/
Tajzadeh feature now posted (with thanks to Iranian@Iran for the initial item and to Iranian for comments used in the piece:
“Iran Special: Political Prisoners, Election Fraud, & The Regime’s Backfiring Propaganda”
* A few weeks ago, the issue of the 2009 election — while still contested by the opposition — had been superseded by broader questions of justice and rights. After all, there is no possible way, given the Government’s suppression of the evidence, to find out how many votes each candidate actually received on 12 June 2009.
But now, with its fumbling attempts to post “confessions” or to at least break its opponents, the regime has opened itself up to more, rather than less, attention to the claims of fraud.
Where those claims will head — to public protest or merely to the simmering of the fire under the ashes of post-election Iran — is unknown, of course. But they are out there: opposition has not been “broken”.*
http://enduringamerica dot com/2010/08/30/iran-special-political-prisoners-election-fraud-the-regimes-backfiring-propaganda/
Iranian
You’ve made three good points:
1- This is the link not to the “confession”, which you call is as part of your propaganda, but to what he admits in private (in fact he has never “confessed” such a thing).
2- The point made is clear, what Tajzadeh says in public is different from what he says in private and that is partially why his own father-in-law condemns him and his wife.
3- I think that this Friday you will see the confidence of the Islamic Republic and the people in Iran, displayed throughout the country. This time, of course, shameless people can’t claim that people went to get cakes and drinks, because they will be fasting!
The first point was especially interesting for me, because I didn’t notice the way Scott Lucas was slyly playing with words.
Scott Lucas can’t hide his true personality when he writes. He is like a neocon who rants and defies logic and reason. When one is funded as a part of a “regime change” budget, one must write like he does I assume.
Scott Lucas,
I think that this Friday you will see the confidence of the Islamic Republic and the people in Iran, displayed throughout the country. This time, of course, shameless people can’t claim that people went to get cakes and drinks, because they will be fasting! The point made is clear, what Tajzadeh says in public is different from what he says in private and that is partially why his own father-in-law condemns him and his wife.
Salam Iranian,
Sorry, friend, no more info from you = no more discussion.
Scott
Scott Lucas:
I’m surprised that your computer “expert” who probably knows no Farsi but can still somehow declare the film a fake, can’t help you resolve your computer’s problem with this film! This is assuming that your repeated claims that the film was pulled was based on honest ignorance. I don’t believe that nor can I believe anything you say any more. You have played with the truth on too many threads here and you have shown yourself to be irrational and dishonest in your exchanges with Eric that were in response to his outstanding work (though I disagree with him on what Iran should to regarding it’s nuclear program!).
Salam Iranian,
I’m sorry but you have not responded to the exposure of the INN distortion. You have made no comment to indicate that the “real” Razavi Faqih comments in Rooz Online — which clearly indicate that Tajzadeh has believed for some time that the election was fraudulent — are incorrect. You have offered no information to discredit the latest post from Tajzadeh’s wife conveying her husband’s latest claims of election fraud.
Thus you have not responded to Tajzadeh’s own words in his latest statement (Persian summary in Rah-e-Sabz; English version on Facebook page linked to Mir Hossein Mousavi):
“Seyyed Mostafa Tajzadeh, imprisoned senior member of Participation Front and Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution Organization (reformist) and the deputy minister of Interior during Mohammad Khatami’s administration, invited the team of coup d’etat for a debate at the state-run television and radio or at Evin prison.
Mostafa Tajzadeh’s wife, Fakhrosadat Mohtashamipour, reported that she was able to meet with her husband for the first time since he was called back to Evin prison two weeks ago and in her conversation with her husband, Seyyed Mostafa Tajzadeh invited the representatives of the autocrats to reveal all the documents they claim to have collected against him over the past year and have a debate with him either on air on the state-run television studio or even at the Evin prison.
He has also asked that the seven-page text, which he had written regarding the electoral fraud during the interrogations, be released to the public. Tajzadeh also stressed that all the propaganda of the government is not only to distract the public mind from the extensive fraud in the tenth presidential elections, but also is to lay foundations to prevent any free and fair elections in the future because the hardliners very well know that with any free elections they will lose power.
Seyyed Mostafa Tajzadeh is one of the seven senior reformists figures who made a formal complaint to the judiciary against some of the high ranking Revolutionary Guards officials because of their illegal intervention in the last year’s presidential election. The complaint is based on a released speech made by one of the senior commanders of the IRGC in which he explained the methods they used to sabotage the reformist candidates’ campaign and meddling in the election process to bring Ahmadinejad back to power.”
(I do thank you for the one piece of information you provide. I will ask correspondents in Iran if the Fars video can be uploaded there.)
I think this latest effort to discredit Tajzadeh through fabricated/distorted claims that he accepts the election — given that he, his wife, and other outlets have not only countered this but re-asserted his challenges to the Government’s “coup” — will be as short-lived as the Fars video attempt.
Of course, the wider story of the continuing attempt to “break” Tajzadeh and other opposition figures through imprisonment, deprivation of contact, and intimidation of his family remains. I think that says a lot about the state of the Government’s confidence in its authority and its legitimacy.
If you do offer any information on the substantive points that have made, I will be happy to respond. Otherwise — especially as I now have enough information to post a special feature on EA — no need to clutter the thread further.
Peace,
Scott
Scott Lucas:
In Iran many would call you a “bache poroo” (being an “Iran expert”, I’m sure you don’t need to ask what that means!). Right after seeing the film you said it was a fake, it wasn’t. You said it has been removed, it hasn’t. You tried to discredit Razavi Faqih, to keep some sort of credibility for yourself. You said that he wrote under duress, when clearly he didn’t.
This is the link not to the “confession”, which you call is as part of your propaganda, but to what he admits in private (in fact he has never “confessed” such a thing):
http://www.farsnews.com/media.php?nn=8905260189
I sure can watch it.
We all know that there was no fraud in the elections, but it was interesting to see what Tajdadeh says in private, not in public. That is one reason why his father-in-law condemns him and his wife. Obviously, it is in your interest as well as in the interest of many in the US to keep this myth about the elections alive. However, you leave no credibility for yourself, by being dishonest, self-contradictory, childish (in your responses to Liz), and by supporting those who tried to steal the Iranian elections.
Salam Iranian and Honorary Correspondent Liz,
Thank you for your points.
1. There is no contradiction or discrediting in the following points:
A. Razavi Faqih does not say in the Rooz Online interview, the original source for his statement, that Tajzadeh believes the reformists lost the election. To the contrary, he says that when Tajazadeh had access to information (after he got out of his original detention), he concluded there had been a “coup” and a “fraud”.
B. Razavi Faqih is not the best source for Tajzadeh’s thoughts, however, as he is not close to the former Deputy Minister of Interior. The best source is the statements of Tajzadeh’s wife — who just wrote that Tajzadeh believes a fraud was committed on 12 June 2009 — and Tajzadeh himself, who just wrote the Tehran Prosecutor General to challenge Government representatives/supporters to a debate.
2. I’ll note that neither of you have any response to the Rooz Online article, to the latest post of Tajzadeh’s wife, or to Tajzadeh himself.
3. I’ll also note that neither of you defend the distorted INN report that started this discussion.
4. The Fars original video of the Tajzadeh “prison confession” disappeared within 48 hours of posting and never reappeared. No analyst outside Iran, to my knowledge, backs the authenticity of the video. (HC Liz, please name one whose claims I can read.)
HC Liz, if you actually go to Fars website and find that the video is still “live”, I would be grateful.
Best,
Scott
@ James Canning
August 29, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“Cuba cannot afford a missile defence system and obviously has no need for one.”
I agree. And Poland et al don’t need one either. But I believe Russia stumped up the cash for Cuban Missile Crisis 1 and if Cuban Missile Crisis 2 comes to pass, the suppliers will pay for the costs of installation, and removal when they’ve got what they wanted.
An eagerly overlooked fact is that NOBODY can afford a missile defense system in its current state of evolution. It doesn’t, can’t, and won’t form a protective shield. Tests have shown that it’s virtually impossible to arrange for a collision between an incoming missile and an ‘interceptor’. This is due to the high speeds involved and the lack of time to recalculate precise course-correction data in the last few km (fractions of a second) of the closing stages of the intercept. The US version has a nuclear warhead with a proximity fuse – which is why Russia, quite correctly, doesn’t want them on its borders (today’s ‘anti-missile missile’ can become tomorrows surface to surface missile merely by reprogramming the guidance and fusing software).
In any case, even if missile defense evolves a 100% collision capability, any system can be overwhelmed by multiple targets and decoys. And they aren’t cheap enough to fire them off willy-nilly ‘just to be on the safe side’.
Missile defense is just another half-baked experiment in ripping off US taxpayers for something that’s slightly worse than useless.
“In Blood and fire Judea fell, in Blood and fire shall Judia rise,” early Zionist anthem.
31 years ago – Israel Lobby used to project Iran as an “examplary moderate Muslim country” along with Turkey. Then something unexpected happened. The Iranian public rose against the US-Israeli puppet King Reza Shah in 1979, and declared Iran an ‘Islamic Republic’. Both the US and Israel were declared ‘enemies’ of the Iranian people by the Iranian people. That ended the over three decades of Israel-Iran love affairs.
Since 1980s the Jewish vengeance is being carried out against the Islamic Republic by Israel and its poodles in the western world. The Persians had tasted the Jewish vengeance over 2000 years ago, as mentioned in the Jewish Book of Esther when over 70,000 non-Jew Persians were butchered to death on the order of their Jewish Queen Esther……..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/hasbara-war-for-us-attack-on-iran/
Scott Lucas:
You probably realize that the points you have written reveal your underlying problem. You knowledge about Iran is really minute and every time you get stuck, you are forced to ask your green staff to give you an answer. They are just hot headed kids and you rely on them too much. They make you look bad.
You distort what Razavie Faqih said and I assume you know this, because then you try hard to discredit him. If he merely said what you claim he said then why do you go out of your way to say that he is not a leading reformist (forget the fact that most reformists have completely distanced themselves from the green people) when in fact he is a leading green? Why do you say he is under duress and then go on to admit “Razavi Faqih, for his part, denounces the regime’s efforts to regain legitimacy one year after the elections — by distorting Tajzadeh’s earlier remarks — and concludes that after a creeping coup the Islamic Republic is neither Islamic nor a republic anymore ”? Is that writing under duress?
The only one here who needs to regain his legitimacy is yourself it seems. By the way, Tajzadeh’s father-in-law has denounced his own daughter for her actions (quickly go and ask your staff what this is all about and then claim he wrote it under duress!).
Tonight most Iranians usually stay awake until morning (Scott Lucas will need to go ask what this is all about), so I’ll be around for a bit waiting for a reply.
James Canning:
well, to me “bomb Iran” that McCain used and “all options are on the table” that Obama and Bush used are the same. rhetorically, I guess Bush talked harsher than McCain. for exactly the same talk, at the time the U.S is unable to initiate a war, Iran would have benefited more. we are blamed here for anything anyway, look at the mosque dispute. so, in that sense, stupid talks are somehow beneficial. it’s a fact that Obama even inspired falsely a segment of Iranian youth!, specially the ones abroad, part of the election mess was due to the this disillusionment that Obama instigated in part of Iranian middle class.
the TRR issue seems to be more complicated. and much has been said about it here and there. I don’t know to what degree domestic politics in the U.S affected it. to me, it seems, the Obama team wasn’t interested in letting the deal go through. no enrichment is the U.S goal. the U.S can’t accept that and TRR is to me irrelevant. probably they thought that with Fardow episode, Iranian’s internal difficulties, and this TRR gesture and others such as appeal to the Muslim world and some diplomatic activity on the peace process, Iran would be totally isolated and ready to give up the whole issue. or they could get the crippling sanctions they were yearning for so long. My guess is: Obama’s team thought that the sanctions are not tough enough, otherwise the Iran issue would be been solved long before. they just gave this issue a shot. they were always talking about one year diplomatic opportunity due to the TRR, could you elaborate what did it mean at all? (they are talking about one year to bomb this time, anyhow)
I would say, their initial assessments were right partly. but things are not always going the way you want in life.
Scott Lucas,
You wrote this in a previous thread (August 20, 2010 at 1:50 am) and this shows that you are either lying or that you are not very intelligent (or both).
You really are fantastic at making a fool of yourself.
You also claimed that the video was fake, when even pro-western Iranians who (like yourself) are funded by the US government admit that it’s authentic. Interestingly you also admit that Tajzadeh did not believe there was fraud the day after the election.
Keep writing. It’s fun reading your stuff. You remind me of Israeli spokesmen, who constantly contradicted themselves during the war on Gaza ans well as the war on Lebanon.
Scott Lucas,
I’m sorry to see that your dishonesty has reached a new level. You lied before when you said Fars pulled the video and later you were forced to retract your stament. You have a very short memory.
Persain Gulf,
Do I understand you to say that the election of John “Bomb Iran” McCain would have weakened the US, due to apprently stupid actions McCain would have taken? And that a weakened US would then have to accept a “nuclear” Iran?
Do you mean the US needs to squander even more of its resources, in order to decline sufficiently so as to be unable to object to Iran’s enrichment of LEU? Isn’t the issue more one of merely acting intelligently? By which I mean telling the Israel lobby to back off and shut up.
This is obvious Iran persistently follows its nuclear programs. Between current solutions , military option isn’t possible and wise, sanctions doesn’t have serious effect on Iran’s approach, furthermore it can bring lots of problem for West, EU and others countries . Therefore, it seems enter into negotiations is the best option …
Persian Gulf,
Obama’s team seems to have blundered last fall, and screwed up the TRR exchange, for reasons of domestic politics. How was this in the best interests of the US?
Alan:
no, Iran is not that powerful. and well, as a commentator here said, if the U.S could confront Islam as whole, then Iran could get benefited here as it’s obvious that the U.S is gonna lose. in any case, my point wasn’t to say how powerful Iran is. if there is any little chance that the U.S could come with the term of an independent nuclear Iran, that could only come true with a weak U.S, or a U.S that is confronted with so many problems and is isolated internationally. a McCain presidency could accelerate that eventuality. after all, I don’t like democrats in the U.S. they were no good for Iran in the past few decades (WHAT WAS THE BENEFIT OF OBAMA FOR IRAN? he isolated Iran initially with his gesture and character. he didn’t do anything good for us. luckily those days are gone. he supposed to respect us, but instead even didn’t recognize our elected president!). republicans make noise, but at the end of the day are more practical easy to work with. I actually missed Bush’s era! can’t imaging any other U.S president to do what Bush did for Iran, e.g removal of Iran’s enemies in the region.
PG – but is Iran really that powerful? So powerful to cause all this fear and angst in the US? I’m not so sure.
James Canning:
of course, they were happy. Obama mentioned this even, he explicitly said, Iran is now more isolated than before. one didn’t need a big brain to understand that last year. even in his debate with McCain on foreign policies, he said what his engagement gesture is for. I suggest, you review that again.
you are wrong, the election agitators were actually friendly with the Obama admin and the Stat dept. people like Parsi, Sajjadpour, Tekeyh…were advisors of the administration. non of them even doubted that the election result could be right. this can’t be just a coincidence. it was clear that the Obama admin. is banking on the notion stolen election for an obvious reason. I am not blaming them. what they did was in the interest of the U.S. it’s just too back for them that things have backclashed. hahaha
I didn’t have any faith on Obama from the very beginning. he didn’t answer the congratulatory letter of Ahmadinejad. it was a tacit approaval of what Bush was doing. he was NOT INTERESTED IN ENGAGEMENT. if you like to not lose your faith on him for whatever reason, that can’t convince people like me, nor for that matter the Iranian gov.
Even Bush with explicit threat of invasion was unable to bomb let alone McCain. this trick doesn’t work anymore. the U.S is in the verge of bankruptcy and this time, not only a crazy regime like Natzis is around, but only some opportunistic powers are ready to bypass the U.S. so, in that sense, yes, I wanted McCain to win so that the U.S could be more isolated and as a result agrees to a settlement. that is what Nixon did. It’s certainly out of naivety to believe a strong U.S would accept any other region power anywhere in the world.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
(Apologies to others that I am responding to a question which is off topic.)
Thank you for bringing the INN item on the alleged Tajzadeh “confession” about the 2009 election to my attention. We will probably feature this on EA on Monday but here are the points I would put up for discussion.
1. INN’s claim that Said Razavi Faqih, a student activist, has confirmed Tajzadeh’s alleged “prison confession” is not just a distortion of the original article on Rooz Online (http://www.roozonline dot com/persian/opinion/opinion-article/article/2010/august/29//-041146e900.html), it is the opposite of what Razavi Faqih said.
INN’s extracts, lifted out of the context of the full article, ignore that Razavi Faqih said that a) while Tajzadeh doubted an election fraud the day after, he was immediately imprisoned and so received no additional information about the manipulation and b) when Tajzadeh received the information after leaving prison, he changed his mind; c) Tajzadeh is now convinced of a massive “mohandessi”, i.e. a complete plan for election-rigging long before election day. (This is what Tajzadeh has said during recent weeks, just before he was summoned back to Evin.)
Razavi Faqih, for his part, denounces the regime’s efforts to regain legitimacy one year after the elections — by distorting Tajzadeh’s earlier remarks — and concludes that after a creeping coup the Islamic Republic is neither Islamic nor a republic anymore.
2. Razavi Faqih is not a leading reformist, nor is he linked to Tajzadeh in any way. He is currently under duress inside Iran, with his passport taken from him so he is unable to return to Paris, where he usually resides.
What Razavi Faqih may offer his interpretation of the Tajzadeh video, but he is no position to know first-hand of Tajzadeh’s beliefs or to act as a spokesman on his behalf.
3. If you want the latest on what Tajzadeh thinks, the reliable, “official” spokesperson for Tajzadeh is his wife, Fakhrosaadat Mohtashamipour. In a post on her personal weblog yesterday (reference available), she published a brief statement that Tajzadeh managed to relay to her during their first visit since Tajzadeh returned to prison and was held incommunicado for 11 days. In that message, he refers without reservation to election “fraud” and a “coup”.
It is also striking that INN would bring out story only a day after Tajzadeh’s latest letter to the Tehran Prosecutor General — again emphasising his belief in a “coup” and challenging Iranian authorities to debate him over the legitimacy of the Government — appeared on the Internet.
4. Reliable information and interpretation from former Evin inmates and people who are very familiar with Tajzadeh continues to confirm a) the “confession” film was not taken inside Evin, but was filmed by a camera planted somewhere else b) Tajzadeh’s voice was heavily altered c) The video is most likely to refer to the 2005 elections.
To my knowledge, Fars pulled the video within 48 hours of posting it and has not attempted to re-present it.
—
For me, the INN effort is significant as part of a wider story. As colleagues and contacts noted at the time of the Fars video, the regime has been trying to “break” Tajzadeh for some time by getting him to publicly make a confession or distance himself from the reformists. When he refused to do so, he was summoned back to Evin and the Fars video was posted.
When Tajzadeh returned to Evin, he was cut off from all contact with his family for 11 days. Still he refuses to bend — unlike other figures who at least temporarily did so, like former Vice President Abtahi — and so the campaign against him, which included the “confession” that he has refused to make, continues.
Best,
Scott
Iran, Seven faces of civilization
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5356229498218843348&hl=en#
Iran is not the Problem
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5356229498218843348&hl=en#docid=5708329875314599685
Sakineh Bagoom – Fox News is an Israeli Hasbara outlet.
How many westerners know that American women were NOT allowed to vote until August 26, 1920? The US Constitution was amended (Amendment 19), which allowed the women to vote in both state and presidential elections. Women in western countries were given the rights to vote – in Norway (1913), in Britain and Canada (1918), in Germany (1919), in France (1944), in Italy (1945), in Greece (1952) and in Switzerland (1971). German Chancellor Markel is the first women head of state of that country. The world is waiting to see a woman lead the government in the US, France, Australia and Russia. Contrary to that, women had been the leaders of the governments in Muslim countries, such as, Pakistan, Bangladesh (its current prime minister is a woman), Indonesia and Turkey.
Women in Islamic Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Bosnia, Hizb’Allah and Hamas can be found in leading positions in almost every sector of the society, such as education, healthcare, CEOs, government, parliament, judiciary and police. Women are recruited in Armed Forces of several Muslim nation-states – but with the exception of Islamic, they are not allowed to participate in active duty during a war. In order to combat sexual abuses in male-dominated military – Islamic Iran has created an independent Women Armed Force with its own commanding officer who is answerable only to the Spiritual Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who, under Iranian Constitution, is the C-in-C of Iranian Armed Forces. In comparasion, the so-called “Women equality” promoter, the US – its Armed forces (200,000-women-strong) – is reported to have one out of every three female soldier experienced sexual abuse as compared to one in six women in the civilian world (CBS News)……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/liberating-muslim-women/
Is it fair to say that Robert Gates has enjoyed a 30-year career as a lobbyist (in effect) for the armaments manufacturers? And that deceiving the American people is a core object of his career?
Ramin Mehmanparast of the Iranian foreign ministry said some intelligent things today:
“If the US seriously seeks to revive relations with Iran, it should make changes in its attitude.” and
“We should sense a maturity in remarks and attitude of US officials. . .”
Is Hillary Clinton listening? What about Robert Gates? And the many stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress?
R S Hack,
I very much agree with your assessment that Gareth Porter “is probably right about Gates being more of a hawk on Iran than most people think.”
I think Gates in fact is trying to box Obama in, and that he is playing a very dangerous game with full encouragement from the warmongering neocons.
We all should bear in mind Gates’s primary role is to deceive the American public about the nature of the threat that exists, and what needs to be done to ensure a reasnable degree of safety at a reasonable cost. The US has squandered many trillions of dollars on useless or unnecessary weapons, thanks partly to Gates and his incompetent assessment of the size of the economy of the USSR, etc.
Read this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100829/ts_nm/us_palestinians_israel_rabbi
In response, I’m sure the EU and the US will soon impose sanctions on Israel (or at least on Gaza)!
Kamran,
Interesting article. An article in the current Vanity Fair magazine makes some important points bearing on the issue. There are 90,000 lobbyists and other influence peddlers in Washington. Money talks, and they have a great deal of money.
Another aspect of the matter is that most reporters covering the White House are young and poorly informed. After the two-day conference in Washington earlier this year, on Israel, Iran and nuclear proliferation, only one question was asked at the White House press conference, bearing on the conference.
Sakineh Bagoom,
She was never going to be stoned, but she has been convicted of the murder of her husband and will probably face capital punishment. This is just another wave of anti-Iranian propaganda. When this finishes it will be something else.
Neil M.,
Russia advocates a foreign policy where the EU and Nato work with it in an atmosphere devoid of threats, insults, etc. Putin has said the greatest strategic threat facing the EU and Russia, is demographic. He is of course quite right.
Cuba cannot afford a missile defence system and obviously has no need for one.
Persian Gulf,
You “assume the Obama team was happy to see Iran’s election aftermath. . .” What is the basis for your assumption? A number of Obama’s senior advisers wanted to engage with Iran, but the neocon frenzy about a “stolen” election made it virtually impossible to get discussions underway.
And you wanted John “Bomb Iran” McCain to win the 2008 US election?!
kooshy:
You are wrong. I didn’t want Obama to win seriously speaking! (I even said this to a few friends and they were shocked at the time!) I wished McCain to win the election, bc it was crystal clear from the very beginning that Obama’s presidency would boost the U.S credibility in the world, in particular in the Muslim world, as a result a better situation vis-vis Iran! a sense of increasing soft power on the U.S side was imminent. probably I looked at it too much in the duality of the U.S-Iran standoff. in any case, that is for the past! Obama has lost his charming, so to the U.S for her sense of repaired reputation.
A bit off topic but, methinks that my name sake, Sakineh’s stoning, is being used as another reason to make war with Iran, as it was made with WWI Anti-German Propaganda – false atrocity stories of “bayoneting babies”. This has been a mainstay of Fox and friends with titles like “The barbaric side of Iran” for weeks now.
PG
I think you and the majority of Americans got a wrong perception of Obama’s “Yes We Can” rhetoric meant, he didn’t mean what you wished which was “yes we can change” he really meant “yes we can continue” and that was obvious from the beginning, if people would have concentrate to see, if it really is possible to change and I don’t mean in foreign policy alone, if you look at the perspective nothing is possible to change anymore short of a grass root revolution. It would be interesting to watch the coming elections and see how and what they are going to do to get the people to the voting polls. The key word would be appealing on the patriotisms (starting with the mosque in NY), since there is nothing else that they can boost on like the war, economy, security, space achievement etc.
Given the new wave of Islamophobia in the U.S, Canada as well, I assume whatever Obama intended to harvest opportunistically at the beginning of his presidency is ruined. a true backclash in terms of PR. I assume the Obama team was so happy to see Iran’s election aftermath and its negative effect on Iran’s view in the world. now it is the time for the U.S to pay. it’s interesting to see whatever comes out of the Muslim world is related to Iran in the corporate media. America is back to the Bush era except another ruinous recession is looming and there is virtually no hope or sentiment that “yes we can”!.
I like this article.
http://iranuswatch.com/foreign-policy-consists-of-misreading-tehran/
Scott Lucas:
What excuse can you provide for us now?
http://www.inn.ir/newsdetail.aspx?id=51488
@ James Canning
August 28, 2010 at 1:14 pm
“Russia wants good relations with Nato and with the EU (and the US). The neocons relentlessly promote idiotic levels of “defence” spending by the US, and it would play into their hands if Russia put a missile defence system into Cuba. Obviously there would be no US attack.”
James, we agree that Russia seems to desire good relations with the West. Logic and commonsense suggest that friendly relationships are preferable to hostile stand-offs but the hostility is entirely American in origin. So while American policies continue to be driven by whimsy, back-flips and superpower delusions, the US will remain an unlikely partner for peaceful cooperation.
The neocons are slowly but surely turning themselves, and their US policies, into a global laughing stock. Until America is humbled/humiliated a little, by being called out on its nonsense, it’s not going to change it’s stripes.
Realistic or not, the Cuba gambit has a few appealing aspects:
1. It was never a good idea to create a cash-strapped artificial enemy, with default ties to major foreign powers, in close proximity to the continental USA. The Yanks should have learnt this during JFK’s reign.
2. Lots of embarrassing questions will be begged if there’s a Cuban Missile Crisis II, and CMC II won’t be as easy to defuse because the Russians (and Chinese) will rightly demand that America cease and desist with its policy of installing strategic threats to their own sovereignty as a precondition to discussing Cuban missiles.
3. Russians have a wonderful appreciation of irony and the Chinese aren’t far behind. I’m quite confident that the Cuban option has already been explored jointly, and at length, in Beijing and Moscow.
With the 9th anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching – I cannot take my mind off the ‘prophetic’ talk between Fox News anchorman John Gibson and columnist Stu Bykofsky in August 2007 in which Stu Bykofsky claimed that America needs a new 9/11 to unite the American people, because they have “forgotten” who the enemy is. The statement was concured by John Gibson.
As the neocons (mostly Jewish) are busy beating the war drums against the Islamic Republic – the coming anniversary could be an appropriate time to fulfil Stu Bykofsky’s prophecy. I wonder if Robert J. Loewenberg, a US-Israel dual citizen and President of the Israeli ‘Institute for Advance Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) would be releasing his new prophecy as he did on September 11, 2001 which documented the events before they really happened…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/beware-of-another-911/
Liz
Considering the current state of US economy and whatever is left of the so called US budget to endure America, I think Scott is beginning to consider that he no longer can work for the “Green” and rather now, he has accepted to continue his Green work just on humanitarian bases
so that the country can carry forward.
Iranian,
Many ignorant, stupid and foolish US politicians thought that sending armaments to Lebanon was a way to isolate Hezbollah. Many are incapable of grasping the fact most Lebanese see ISRAEL as the primary threat to the national security of Lebanon.
Pirouz_2,
I would expect there to be many senior US military officials who would deplore the carnage caused by any attack on Iran.
There is some logic to the argument that attacking Iran might well cause Iran to develop nuclear weapons, when there is now no intelligence that Iran wants nukes.
Would you wish for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and to drop a nuke or two on Israel, to punish the Israelis for attacking Iran? This course obviously would slaughter a great number of Muslims too.
By invading and occupying Iraq, the US inflicted a colossal injury on itself, and the negative effects of the idiotic decision will continue to damage the US for decades to come. Many US leaders see that attacking Iran would cause an even larger injury to the US than that caused by the idiotic decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
It’s fun to see how easily the Iranians and Hezbollah can make American government oficials break out in a cold sweat!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hPrGQ-EHtdwtsRH9Pn_fqkDMrOfAD9HQOFDG0
@James Canning:
James, first of all Jerusalem is not as important as people make it to be. In fact this whole “religious stuff” is highly exaggerated. If you are under a serious existential threat, never mind Jerusalem, even Mekka would lose its sacredness!!
I am not suggesting that Iran should make a “bomb” in some hidden place, and it is not possible to do it in the current state of affairs anyway (but even if it were I wouldnt suggest it, I hate nuclear weapons)
Let me explain my position here, whether you agree with it or not is another issue but let me explain it so that you know where I stand.
Iran AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, has a very powerful deterrence capability (its ability to inflict significant cost to the USA asymmetrically). If USA has not attacked us so far, if Adm. Fallon hated that idea so much, it is not because US generals have a big heart and are worried about the consequences of such an event for the Iranian civilians. Even if Irans population were to be halved in an attack by USA, provided that they could achieve what they want with an acceptable number of casualties to their mercenaries, they would have attacked us LONG TIME AGO.
So it is not like Iran has no deterrent and is a sitting duck at the mercy of the US generals and their big hearts!
The question here is how can Iran increase its power of deterrence significantly? The US hawks maybe irrational actors, but even those guys will fear the possibility of a “retaliation” which would essentially put “Israel” out of commision! Will the tangible plausibilty of such a “retaliatory” measure (and please keep in mind that I am always using the word “retaliation”) absolutely eliminate the possibility of US/Israel launching a war of aggression against Iran? Of course not! But it will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce it!
Now I am not a nuclear science specialist, but so far as I have read and researched from people who are indeed experts on this issue, enriching LEU to weapons grade by centrifuges without the observation of IAEA does not require a very-large-sitting-duck kind of target that USA (or much less Israel) can destroy even in a massive bombing campaign which would last a couple of months.
Making samll size enrichment facilities all over Iran is really not that hard.
Iran doesn’t want to do it, because it feels no need to do it, BUT IT CAN DO IT.
And it is precisely because it can do it that it doesnt feel the need to actually do it!
The best answer to Richard Steven Hack’s position that USA can bomb to prevent Iran from making a bomb comes from no lesser of a person than Robert Gates himself, who said on numerous occasions VERY clearly, that EVEN USA (let alone Israel) through military means (ie. massive bombing campaigns) can only “delay” Iranian nuclear program by 2-3 years AT BEST. This admission by Mr. Gates, by itself means:
a)Iran will be able to stand the massive bombing campaigns.
and
b)Even after those attacks it will be able to make a bomb!!
So this idea that USA can somehow bomb Iran to the stone age and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear bomb is just PLAIN FALSE.
As such, if there is enough LEU in Iran, to make a few war heads, and if its enrichment capabilities (ie. the quality and the quantity of its centrifuges) advance enough, IRAN CAN GUARANTEE THAT AFTER THE FIRST WAVE OF ATTACK IT CAN DROP AT LEAST ONE RETALIATORY BOMB ON ISRAEL IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. AND I AM BEING GENEROUS HERE WITH THE NUMBER OF BOMBS!
It is that REAL possibility of the “single” bomb, to be droped IN RETALIATION after the first wave of attack by US/Israel which would significantly change their calculations in making plans for an attack on Iran.
This is why the West is so adamant in denying Iran the industrial complex to do enrichment, and IMHO that is why Iranian government is so persistent on increasing its enrichment capabilities.
There is no point in denying it, attacking a country with a significant nuclear “capablity” (again note I am not saying a “bomb” I am saying a “capability”) is VERY DIFFERENT from attacking a country with no nuclear capability.
It is not that Iranians want to literally make a bomb, it is that they are fully aware that having that capability together with a large enough a LEU stockpile on their soil, will increase their deterrence capabilities SIGNIFICANTLY.
And I think it shouldnt be just Iranians, ANYONE who “sincerely” does not wish to see another war of aggression started by US/Israel, should support Iran’s nuclear program.
Fiorangela,
Didn’t Britain own a 60% interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company? This company played a significant role in the economic development of Iran, and its existence was of crucial importance in keeping Russia from taking over Persia entirely in the early part of the 20th century.
Churchill fought the Germans to preserve the British Empire, This was a key war aim. Shouldn’t the US State Dept. bear in mind a key war aim of the primary American ally?
Rehmat,
Re: Aug. 27th, 8:07pm – - What a comment on the depths to which Congressional debate has stooped, regarding Iran! The Bipartisan Policy Center suggests three options TO DEAL WITH TEHRAN BEFORE IT ACQUIRES NUKES! The Israel lobby takes great care to ensure the Israeli militarist point of view controls the narrative in any document regarding Iran produced by this “Bipartisan” group. Part of the game plan, of course, is to continue the deception of the American public, so that grotesque levels of “defence” spending continue unhindered. The stooges of the “defence” contractors in the US Congress often do double-duty as stooges of the neocon warmongers.
Rehmat,
You provided an excellent example of liar warmongering neocons (at the Hudson Institute). Jack David, in his June 8, 2010 “Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Capability: Containment or Military Action”. Quote: “Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability AND ITS AGGRESSIVE PROJECTION OF POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST. . .”
Astounding rubbish, and obviously intentionally dishonest in its effort to dupe the ignorant American public. And their ignorant politicians.
Alan,
I very much agree that Syria will remain on good terms with Iran, and that support for Hezbollah will continue. Lebanon sees Hezbollah as essential to its own security, to guard against another insane Israeli smashing of the country.
The Saudis have been trying to get Israel out of the Golan Heights. This is a worthy cause that should receive strong support from the US. Idiot warmongering neocons in general would like to see Israel try to keep the Golan, even if it means permanent hostility with Syria.
Pirouz_2,
Iran does not want to see the destruction of Jerusalem, or Israel, by military means.
Are you suggesting Iran should develop nukes on the sly, so it could drop one on Israel in the event of war? This would be an insane policy, and of course directly in conflict with Iran’s consistent position that all nuclear weapons should be removed from the Middle East.
The idiotic US/UK invasion of Iraq inflicted on the US a colossal degree of economic damage. Neocon viciousness and stupidity caused more damage to the US than the “9/11″ attacks.
Neil M.,
Russia wants good relations with Nato and with the EU (and the US). The neocons relentlessly promote idiotic levels of “defence” spending by the US, and it would play into their hands if Russia put a missile defence system into Cuba. Obviously there would be no US attack.
@ James Canning says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“Neil M., China and Russia both want the dispute resolved through negotiations. Why would they want to play into the hands of warmongering neocons in the US?”
James, moving to establish a missile base in Cuba wouldn’t lead to a shooting war (because to China, Russia, and certainly to me), Uncle Sam is a paper tiger. But it would lead to serious negotiations (from a position of strength) over NATO’s Polish etc missile bases, and that could become the main game – overnight.
One overlooked factor is that Bushehr is a profitable Russian investment in Iran’s future. If it were bombed by US or Israel’s fantasists Russia would have a legitimate gripe circa ‘restraint of trade’ and could pursue compensation/payback via numerous avenues, well short of going to war, but still unpleasant for US and Israel.
I think it’s only a matter of time until Russia and/or China calls the paper tiger’s bluff in a very public manner. Imo the whole world is tired of America’s bullhorn diplomacy and this would be a risk-free way of telling America to put a sock in it.
US/NATO posturing/flouncing/mincing is designed to scare American civilians. It doesn’t fool anyone else.
@Richard Steven Hack:
Re your post on August 28, 2010 at 3:51 am,
I completely disagree with that assessment. First of all I never meant that Iran would do a first attack. All Iran would need to do is “retaliation”. All Iran is need to have to demonstrate that it can stand a “first blow” and return only one retaliatory attack with a single war head to Israel.
THAT BY ITSELF IS DETERRENT ENOUGH. Iran really does not need to compete with either the quality or the quantity of the US/Israeli nuclear weaponry. The size of Israel is so tiny that ONE BOMB would be deterrent enough even if Israel had 2000 war heads!
You have to remember, the aggressor side has always an EXTREMELY LOW threshold for pain and retaliation. All you need to do is to prove that you can hurt back, you dont need to retaliate on equal terms necessarily.
Iran’s missile technology as far as I know, is already quite advanced, its medium range missiles can deliver 1-tone war heads, and its technology in that field is fast progressing.
Nonetheless I do agree that as it is RIGHT NOW, Iran is not in that position yet. But if the amount of LEU stockpile increases enough (which is increasing, and will get there in 3-4 years) and the enrichment technology advances enough too (which is advancing, Iran is testing the thrid generation of its centrifuges), it will be in a position to withstand a first attack by the USA/Israel (even a nuclear one) and then retaliate by a small size attack of itself.
And that is more than enough to alter USA/Israel’s calculations SIGNIFICANTLY.
STRATFOR has a nice name, but little credibility. Assad will never give up Iran, Hezbollah, Jahad, or Hamas. The “Resistace” is what makes him so popular at home.
RSH – I agree about Hizballah. Furthermore, it is important to understand that Iran is only a small part of their operation. They are Lebanese first and foremost, and there is no chance whatsoever that Hizballah would attack Israel on Iran’s orders. None.
An awful lot of that Stratfor piece strikes me as conjecture. Hizballah is very careful to align itself with pro and anti-Syrian forces, and to avoid sectarian style altercations or divisions. They are possibly the canniest, and most impressive, operators in the Middle East. To view them as a terrorist organisation, or somebody’s proxy, is a very serious miscalculation.
Assad is no mug either. I can’t see him selling his old partners down the river for a few Saudi or US good wishes. My instinct would be to view the various activities of late as a growing realisation, particularly on Saudi Arabia’s part, that their primacy, along with Egypt and Jordan, is on the wane and they need to plot a more intelligent way into the future.
“Why discredit, defame and silence those with opposing viewpoints? I believe it is because the Zionist Lobby knows it cannot win based on facts,” – Dr. Joel Beinin (Jewish professor at Stanford University in his article “Silencing critics not way to Middle East peace”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 4, 2007).
The Board of Trustees at Hudson Institute join the neocons’ campaigning for US military attack on the Islamic Republic.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/silencing-the-anti-zionist-israeli-academe/
RSH/James – re Gareth Porter piece. It is always worth taking into consideration the conclusions Porter draws. In this particular piece, he obviously has his reasons for believing what he does, which is good, however I don’t think the piece as written provides a particularly convincing argument for what he has concluded. Which is not to say he is wrong.
I think Iran’s new plan do not effect on russia position ,because still Russia refuses of stand on front against usa…Whereast iran’s Plan gives this meaning…..
Nasser: “a reversal of Syrian loyalties could end up devastating Hezbollah’s capabilities.”
Stratfor is seriously full of it. Just about everybody concedes that Syria is not pulling away from Iran, and even if it did, Iran could continue to support Hizballah to the exact degree Nasrallah might want it to. As long as Iran is Shia and Hizballah is the face of the Shia in Lebanon, nothing is going to shake their connection, short of a “grand bargain” between the US and Iran which requires Iran to drop support for Hizballah – which event is SO unlikely as to be ludicrous.
Nasrallah is not stupid. He’s not going to allow Hizballah to be isolated. His masterful dragging in of Israel into the Hariri investigation shows that Hizballah is not to be trifled with, by Israel, Lebanon, Syria, the US or anyone else.
Pirouz_2: “And I strongly believe that if Iran gets to have a stockpile of LEU equivalent to 5-10 war heads, together with an ability to enrich it to weapons grade on a very short notice”
Ah, but that’s the rub. There’s no way it can be “short notice” ENOUGH to prevent Israel attacking first, if not the US. Beyond that, it still has to build a deliverable weapon.
“(provided that it has a reliable means of delivery)”
This is the second rub. It doesn’t have it now and probably can’t without testing a warhead with fissile material – which by definition means withdrawing from the NPT, again a red line for Israel and probably the US. By the time Iran has tested a warhead, it’s toast.
“you have to remember that Israel is literally a one-bomb state, meaning that the detonation of a single war head over Israel would essentially end its existence as a country).”
To some degree, that’s true. If Tel Aviv and Haifa were destroyed, I’d say that pretty much would put paid to Israel – no port and its one major city gone. But the warheads would need to be reasonably accurate or very powerful. It’s not clear how quickly Iran could develop a warhead in the megaton range.
The real problem is that Israel undoubtedly has the capability for a second strike which would destroy Tehran at least, not to mention that Israel has considerably more nukes than Iran. If you destroy Tehran and nine other major Iranian cities, you’ve wiped out thirty percent of the population of Iran because Iran is heavily urban, just like Israel. So nine nukes and Iran is devastated.
So if Iran were attacked, say, five or ten years from now when they have the LEU stockpile for five or ten nukes and perhaps better missiles, the scenario would still be that Iran could basically do nothing about it. If, during the war, either the US or Israel believed Iran was manufacturing a nuclear warhead, by the time Iran could get it built and loaded into a missile, odds are Tehran and/or every possible missile site would be nuked by either Israel or the US.
This is why I say Iran has no need for and receives no benefit from building an actual nuclear weapon, let alone just stockpiling the LEU. Iran is just too far down the nuclear totem pole to be a threat. This is why the whole concern over Iran stockpiling LEU is basically a waste of time.
Iran is not North Korea. NK can threaten South Korea and the US with a massive million man army, scores of thousands of artillery pieces and rockets, hundreds of tanks, and 120,000 really tough Special Forces troops. So NK doesn’t have to rely on the few nukes it has, most of which will probably turn out to be duds. Iran has nothing to match NK in terms of conventional war fighting capability. So Iran will remain vulnerable to attack for years to come despite any amount of LEU stockpiled.
M. J. Rosenberg argues that “Pro-Bombing Iran Is Anti-Israel”.
www dot huffingtonpost dot com/mj-rosenberg/pro-bombing-iran-is-anti_b_697161.html
Of course, again the problem is that the guys ordering the bombing don’t expect to get hit back – even in Israel. They expect OTHER civilians to get hit – and they think, to use Madeleine Albright’s words, that “it’s worth it”.
Why they hate us:
US to fund installation of Israeli rocket defence system
news dot bbc dot co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8681919.stm
Like I said: It’s about MONEY.
U.S. Warfare Boosted Q2 GDP Massively
www dot businessinsider dot com/us-gdp-defense-driver-2010-8
Quote: “So a large part of Q2 GDP performance, +0.39% compared to the 1.6% total GDP growth for the U.S., was thanks to wars and general defense.”
Stratfor on a possible Syrian betrayal:
“Summary
Syria’s slow and deliberate moves against the Iranian-Hezbollah nexus come with the risk of retaliation by Iranian and Hezbollah forces against Damascus. But Syria is trying to stay one step ahead, making clear to both Hezbollah and Iran that it has the militant and intelligence assets to back Hezbollah against a wall — and thus deprive Iran of a key deterrent — should it be sufficiently provoked.
Analysis
STRATFOR has been closely monitoring the steps Syria has been taking to quietly distance itself from Tehran and keep a firm check on Hezbollah as part of a broader understanding with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and by extension, the United States. Syria cannot be expected to sever ties with its longtime allies in Hezbollah and Tehran, and it will continue to use those ties to extract concessions in negotiations with Riyadh. However, it has become increasingly evident that Damascus is now willing to take bolder steps against the Iranian-Hezbollah nexus, as illustrated by Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s decision to make a high-profile visit to Lebanon alongside Saudi King Abdullah. Not only have Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others started accepting Syria as the hegemonic power in Lebanon, but Damascus is also beginning to play a larger role in the Iraq negotiations, where Syria and the United States have found a common interest in ensuring a prominent role for Iraq’s Sunni Baathists in the next government.
Syria’s cooperation with Saudi Arabia in Lebanon and Iraq does not come without risks for Damascus, however. While Hezbollah is deeply concerned about seeing its clout in Lebanon undercut by Syria’s powerful security and intelligence apparatus, Iran now has to worry about a key component of its deterrent strategy becoming jeopardized. For Iran to effectively deter a U.S./Israeli military strike, it needs to convince its adversaries that the cost of such an attack will be too high to bear. Iran can manage this by threatening traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, through which some 40 percent of global oil trade transits on a daily basis; by threatening to seriously destabilize Iraq and threaten U.S. forces there and in Afghanistan; and finally, by using Hezbollah as its most potent militant proxy to threaten Israel and other areas around the world where Hezbollah has assets ready to deploy. Iran’s deterrence strategy has the best chance of succeeding if all three components are in place. With the Saudis, Turks and Americans working to counter Iran in Iraq and deprive Iran of its tool Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran now has to consider a potentially critical threat to its negotiating position.
Iran appears to be more confident about its ability to counter U.S. objectives in Iraq, where it has an array of political, militant and intelligence assets in play, than it does in Lebanon, where a reversal of Syrian loyalties could end up devastating Hezbollah’s capabilities. Indeed, STRATFOR sources connected to the Iranian regime have been attempting to signal to Washington that, given Iran’s confidence in Iraq, Tehran will not succumb to pressure to negotiate over Saudi efforts in Lebanon. In other words, Iran will put up a strong fight for Hezbollah, but Washington and Riyadh should understand Iranian priorities are primarily in Iraq. Though Iran is trying to create the perception within U.S. and Saudi policymaking circles that the Iranians are not impressed by Saudi moves in Lebanon, there is little hiding the fact that Tehran is seriously concerned about losing leverage in the Levant.
STRATFOR has thus been watching for signs of Iranian and Hezbollah backlash against Damascus that could unravel Syrian-Saudi cooperation over Lebanon. Hezbollah has the capacity for sabotage in Syria and, according to sources in the area, Hezbollah operatives, in cooperation with Iraqi Shia, have set up a number of new sleeper cells in the Greater Damascus region in cooperation for potential operations in the country. But STRATFOR sources have admitted that Iranian and Hezbollah options against Syria are still limited. Iran has no real economic leverage over Syria, and its ability to use militant assets against Damascus is severely hampered by Syria’s powerful state security apparatus, which tightly monitors (and manages) the militant supply chains running from Syria to Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan.
Syria is in fact preempting Iranian and Hezbollah moves by making it clear to Hezbollah that it will pay a high price for taking action against Damascus. A peculiar firefight in Sunni-concentrated west Beirut on Aug. 24 between members of Hezbollah and al Ahbash, a staunchly pro-Syrian group, appears to have been part of that Syrian preemption plan. The incident began as a parking dispute and has been widely described as a purely nonpolitical and personal affair, but further examination has revealed that Syrian agents exploited al Ahbash’s decision to provoke Hezbollah into the firefight to widen the scope of the conflict. The agents allegedly were responsible for much of the damage to cars and shops during the incident, which was meant to heighten Sunni hostility toward Hezbollah.
Hezbollah appears to have been taken aback by the entire incident, and after conducting the necessary damage control to contain the situation, Hezbollah leaders have been discussing privately the implications of being drawn into routine, Syrian-provoked skirmishes in the alleys of Beirut. Speculation is circulating that Syria is trying to re-create the conditions that existed in west Beirut in 1985-87 when street fighting among rival militias escalated to the point Syria was able to justify a return of the Syrian army to Beirut, where it remained until Syrian forces were forced out in 2005 following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.
The situation is still far from what it was during Lebanon’s civil war days, and Syria has yet to give any indication that it is willing to sacrifice Hezbollah. However, Syria is using the specter of such conflict to remind Hezbollah — along with its patrons in Iran — that any attempt to jeopardize Syria’s current foreign policy agenda will come at the cost of pushing Damascus over the edge, which is exactly what Washington and Riyadh are hoping for.”
@Richard Steven Hack,
You said:”As you probably know from my posts, I don’t think Iran gets ANY security benefit from having a nuclear energy program, aside from the independence from whatever foreign energy sources they may require now. I don’t think a nuclear energy program, even an “ambiguous” one, gets them any geopolitical security advantage, aside from the probability that potential military enemies probably won’t attack their nuclear facilities directly due to the radiation risk. (OTOH, since the US has considered using nuclear bunker busters, presumably the US really doesn’t care about that risk. It certainly doesn’t care about the tons of depleted uranium it dumped on Iraq.)”
Well we completely disagree on this one. I am not talking about any “ambiguity” in our nuclear program. I think -quite contrary to Eric- that there is no “ambiguity” about the Iranian nuclear program.
And I strongly believe that if Iran gets to have a stockpile of LEU equivalent to 5-10 war heads, together with an ability to enrich it to weapons grade on a very short notice (provided that it has a reliable means of delivery) is a VERY SIGNIFICANT deterrent which would pretty much completely rule out the possibility of a military attack on Iran either by Israel or by USA (you have to remember that Israel is literally a one-bomb state, meaning that the detonation of a single war head over Israel would essentially end its existence as a country).
In June 2010 – the Bipartisan Policy Center issued its fourth report on Islamic Republic. the report was authored by thre ‘Israel-Firsters’, former Senators Daniel Coats and Charles Robb, and retired General Charles Wald. The report suggested three options to deal with Tehran before it acquire the necessary nuclear capability to destroy Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. The three options were; diplomacy, sanctions and a military attack. Since the first two options have failed to cow Islamic Republic, which has just commissioned its first nuclear power-generating reactor at Bushehr. The remaining third option carries some serious problem for Ben Obama’s ZOG administration. One of them is to assemble the ‘willing Arab partners’, like during the Iraqi invasion. The best to solve this problem, according to several neocon advisers – is to start another 3-party Israel-PA negotiation for the two-state solution….
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/new-israel-pa-circus-to-isolate-iran/
interesting new (to me) perspective on the relationship between FDR and Churchill, and the fundamentally different world views of those two powerful and antagonistic leaders. FDR’s vision was for a world without empires but of nations whose people were sovereign over their own resources and who enjoyed “the four freedoms.” FDR did not have free reign to impose his vision; apparently, in his day, the US State Department was an outpost of the British and run by British foreign service for British advantage, even as today the US State Dept is an outpost of Israel and run by Israelists for Israel’s advantage. (British influence is still embedded in American DNA by means of Protestant Christian attitudes and beliefs.)
http://members.tripod.com/american_almanac/FDRlw95.htm#
FDR had in mind to dismantle the Versailles system and the British empire; he had Churchill over a barrel and was, in part, able to press his advantage during the war and in the settlement of the peace.
Of course, FDR was dead in 1953, but it’s hard not to imagine Churchill dancing on FDR’s grave as Churchill used Kermit ROOSEVELT to exert the last gasp of British empire: the overthrow of Mossadeqh with the purpose of overturning Mossadeqh’s plan to nationalize Iranian oil, a resource that Churchill was convinced was the rightful property of the British, and Britain’s moribund empire.
Mr. Canning: “Did you read Gareth Porter’s…”
See my earlier post in this thread. I take considerable issue with Porter’s notions about Obama’s “good judgement”.
R S Hack,
When Russia sought American support for its plan to keep control of the fuel cycle for all five Iranian reactors at Bushehr, it argued this was the best way to enable the production of electricity while guarding against nuclear weapons proliferation. The Bush White House was too arrogant and stupid to back the Russians on the matter.
Pirouz_2 and R S Hack,
I agree with Richard that Iran obtains virtually no security benefit from its nuclear programme. In fact, Iran’s economy would be considerably larger if it had avoided the years of sanctions. On the other hand, Iranian self-reliance has been enhanced.
R.d.,
Did you read Gareth Porter’s “Obama Resists Pressure for Red Line on Iran’s Nuclear Capability” (Aug. 26th, truth-out.org)? Porter says Obama has refused Bob Gates’s wish that a line in the sand, or red line, be drawn. This shows good judgement on Obama’s part.
Pirouz_2 “…in my opinion its chief benefit for us is the “security”, any other “future” benefit that it may or may not have (and I don’t deny the possibility) is secondary to this “immediate” security benefit.”
As you probably know from my posts, I don’t think Iran gets ANY security benefit from having a nuclear energy program, aside from the independence from whatever foreign energy sources they may require now. I don’t think a nuclear energy program, even an “ambiguous” one, gets them any geopolitical security advantage, aside from the probability that potential military enemies probably won’t attack their nuclear facilities directly due to the radiation risk. (OTOH, since the US has considered using nuclear bunker busters, presumably the US really doesn’t care about that risk. It certainly doesn’t care about the tons of depleted uranium it dumped on Iraq.)
Mr. Canning: “However, China and Russia have made clear they do not want additional countries possessing nuclear weapons in the Middle East.”
That’s what I meant by “in general terms”. Nobody does. But if it happens, they won’t sweat it.
@Kooshy and Richard steven hack:
Just not to let there be any misunderstanding of my position:
I am 1000% (and no its not a typo, I do mean 1000) behind Iran’s nuclear program. It’s just that in my opinion its chief benefit for us is the “security”, any other “future” benefit that it may or may not have (and I don’t deny the possibility) is secondary to this “immediate” security benefit.
Fiorangela
FYI
The name for wind towers is “Baadgeer” literally meaning wind catcher (Baad=Wind and Geer = catching)
And for underground water canals in Persian is called “Ghanat “or “Kariz” (mostly used in Yazd) some Iranian linguists believe that Ghanat is the origin of canal or channel in English
Iran began building modern wind farms over fifteen years ago http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~aupec/aupec02/Final-Papers/H-Kazemi1.pdf
and in 2009, a solar energy facility in Shiraz came online. The Shiraz solar plant uses parabolic mirrors to focus the sun’s rays on a liquid-filled tube where the liquid is super-heated to produce steam to run turbines to produce electricity :http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/06/alternative-energy-solar-power
Iran is about 1000 years ahead of the enviro-green curve — that’s how long Iran has made use of bangirs to cool homes and qants to find and distribute water.
R S Hack,
I very much agree China and Russia do not think Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme. However, China and Russia have made clear they do not want additional countries possessing nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This latter point is significant in the context of the liar neocons who accuse Russia of helping Iran to develop nukes.
kooshy,
The Iranian proposal for a wide-ranging agreement with the US, seven or eight years ago, was blocked by Israel. The Bush administration did not acknowledge publicly the fact the offer had been made, even though clearly it was a very reasonable proposal and in the best interests of both countries. The Bush crowd did not want the American people to be aware of the degree of control over US foreign policy, that the Israel lobby (and neocon warmongers) have obtained.
R. d.,
I would expect Turkey to choose Russian-designed reactor on cost basis, and as means of facilitating better relations. I doubt Turkey would wish to enrich LEU.
Zbig Brzezinski thinks US should shoot down any Israeli warplanes violating Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, because Iraq’s government has forbidden Israel to use its airspace for such a purpose. Ditto with Turkey.
I very much enjoyed the choice of the visual, for this tread’s photo since it is cleverly pointing to the “correct” way to go to “Natanz”, I must congratulate who ever chose this picture .
G. Porter “What both the West and Moscow really want is to maintain the current status quo.”
how is the current status quo maintained, if the bushehr is on-line??
imho “If Brzezinski is calling to shoot down Israeli planes in case of attack through Iraki airspace, there should be a reason other than the love of Iran…”
on might assume there are no questions on Zbig’ love for iran issues. iran could very well be one of the major keys to his lust for Eurasia and complete containment of russia. this could very well be an interesting key??
as far as imminent attack, early mid 2000, it was ‘likely’ a certainty. now, would russia and china stand still if there was an attack? or would we be back in the cold war, korea, vietnam experiences?
as for US, all the war drums provide a convenience to try and define the narrative on maintaining their position, in P.G., in their regime change efforts, iraq, afghan, etc..
same for israel, they seem to use the excuse to define the palestinian narative, while they grab more lands and maintain their illegal occupations, etc.
without the iran isuue, how long before the palestinian issue and the siege gain more international recognition. how long before the afghan issue become more of a global issue as well as an internal issue in US? iran provides a good cover, while they make every effort to contain her.
and as far as the russian proposal, why would russia not consider? russia’s state goal is to expand its global nuclear market. would turkey consider US/west for its nuclear power plant? where they know, the fuel will be the leash the west would hold on them. or would they consider a russian plant, if russia is seen as more accommodating in regards to a joint consortium vis a vi fuel productions? as well for other countries who are considering nuclear power plants. Wouldn’t these other perspective countries realize the monopoly on the fuel is a dead end?
so iran after 1929, has provided the russians to show their hand. perhaps it is too early to take bets on when the EU union becomes a dis-union regards to iran issue (S korea and sanctions). however, on the russian front, is there no reason for the winds to change?
Pirouz_2: I think the scientific consensus on alternative energy vs nuclear is that alternative is not economically feasible in the near term, i.e., 20-30 years, to produce the amount of energy needed by larger countries.
The world will need double the amount of energy produced today by the year 2050. There is really only one program that can do that (without creating 10,000 more nuclear reactors worldwide) and that is the Nanotech Energy Initiative proposed by the late Dr. Richard Smalley which would use huge space satellites to capture solar radiation and beam it down to capture farms on Earth (Iran’s large space would probably be a good place to put one, actually), and then distribute the energy by nanocarbon wires and nano-enhanced batteries.
Iran clearly doesn’t have the technology to get into that, so nuclear is probably the best it can do for now. We all know nuclear is a necessity for Iran as otherwise it will have to use its oil production for its energy needs in the next 20-30 years and this will prevent it from exporting the oil for revenue to build its infrastructure.
Mr. Canning: “both Russia and China oppose any Iranian nuclear weapons programme while supporting the domestic nuclear power programme of Iran. I think Russia and China would have this position even if the US took no interest in the matter.”
Russia and China don’t believe Iran HAS a nuclear weapons program, and if the US weren’t involved, they wouldn’t say one word about Iran. With Russian technicians running Bushehr, you KNOW Russia has plenty of spies in Iran who have told them there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program.
I don’t think Russia would care much even if Iran had a nuclear weapons program, except in general terms, because Russia, like the US, has far more nuclear weapons than Iran will ever have. Iran would be no threat to Russia for decades, if ever.
Escobar is also right that China wouldn’t care even if there were an Iranian program, as Iran is no threat to China.
Russia and China’s interest in Iran is completely explained by their economic ties: Russia sells to Iran, China sells to and buys from Iran. Both also use the trumped up Iran “crisis” as means to negotiate by proxy with the US on other matters. They also see Iran as a means of occupying the US in the Middle East and less in their backyards in Eastern Europe and Asia. Beyond that, they couldn’t care less if Iran went nuclear.
Pirouz_2
What I must have added to my last comment is, look what has happened in just last 7 to 8 years, well before the current Iran’s nuclear and geostrategic capabilities, Iran sent a comprehensive proposal for negotiations on all matters of interest, it wasn’t even considered and immediately sent to the bin, but look to see what we have now, what are this new elements that have caused the change in the west’s behavior making them not only willing but rather begging Iran to negotiate. Iran can and should cleverly expand and rip the fruit from these newly developed conditions which I am sure you know what they are.
Pirouz_2
Pirouz- obviously regardless of the cost, having a full nuclear fuel cycle has many other advantages that we have debated numerously in this forum, as I replied yesterday and based on your list of events in past thirty years Iran effectively has maintained a deterrent condition which has prevented a direct military attack by US, and we know this deterrence has not been based on a presumed past nuclear capability. With expansion of Iran’s energy export (NG) which eventually has to happen and with the advance of Iran’s nuclear capability as well as its industrial development, in future Iran can enjoy a much stronger leverage that currently has in any future negotiations with west as well as the east, being it for the technology or raw martial. To wrap it all up, to get there Iran somehow needed to vigorously maintain its independence at all cost, or submit to be a client state of the west without any meaningful control for its internal or external interests.
Ayatollah Emami-Kashani is quoted today as saying that Jerusalem Day demonstrations “prevent the Palestinian nation from being swallowed by enemies who swallow nations and define everything by means of threats, atomic weapons, force, hypocrisy and money.” Bravo, and all too true! Maybe Charlie Rose should have Ayatollah Emami-Kashani apprear on his TV interview programme in America. Does anyone doubt the real reason for all the orchestrated hostility against Iran, is Iran’s support for Palestinian nationalism?
Liz,
I agree with you that Khamenei made it clear Iran will have no direct talks with the US, as long as the US continues to make threats of military attacks against Iran. Clearly, this is a reasonable position, but of course it enables the warmongering neocons in the US to “box Obama in” by forcing him to make threats (or to allow threats to be made by US generals and admirals).
The foregoing is one reason I think Iran should deal with the UK rather than the US because the government of the UK is not under the control of the Israel lobby to the degree that obtains in the US.
Pirouz_2,
Just looking at the numbers in the articles above, Iran spent $1 billion on Bushehr #1, while Turkey will spend $5 billion to build a nuclear power plant with 20% greater generating capacity. Iran’s investment was over many years, of course.
Obviously, Iran has paid a significant additional price, in terms of increased cost of imports, loss of export markets, etc etc arising from the sanctions.
Pirouz_2,
Kazakhstan has huge uranium reserves and is not under the control of Russia or “the west”.
Neil M.,
China and Russia both want the dispute resolved through negotiations. Why would they want to play into the hands of warmongering neocons in the US?
Kooshy:
By the way, please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean that I know the answer to the questions I asked in my previous post (that is why I asked them, so that if anyone knows he/she would tell me as well). Furthermore I don’t mean that the IRI government has necessarily not done its homework and a research on how beneficial this nuclear thingy will be (strictly in terms of energy). Maybe they have done an extensive research on the issue and come to the conclusion that it was a very wise investment in the field R&D to focus our energy and money on the nuclear energy.
If any such research has been made, have the results been published anywhere?
Nasser Karimi’s report from Moscow, regarding the proposed consortium, indicated that the enrichment of the LEU would take place in Russia, with the plates then being produced in Iran (to fuel the Bushehr reactors). This to me seems a promising way forward.
Kayhan writes: “With Bushehr’s launch. . . Iran will have the upper hand in future talks [with the P5+1].” What “upper hand” is he talking about? This is not a zero-sum game. There was never any question that Bushehr #1 would come online. The issue is whether the US will act intelligently and allow the fuel exchange to proceed for the TRR, as per the IAEA application, or instead the US will act foolishly and obstruct the deal to please the Israel lobby (and neocon warmongers).
If US/Israeli-inspired pressure on Iran continues despite the fuel deal, Russia and China can pour cold water on the hype by rubbing America’s nose in its own FP reality creation – by going through the motions of establishing a protective “missile shield” in Cuba.
America-NATO has established the precedent of ‘encirclement’ and a little tit-for-tat by the ‘encircled’ would probably relegate the Iran Talk to the back burner for quite a while.
Kooshy:
My main problem is that all of those central asian neighbours who have Uranium are under the control of Russia/USA, none of them is acting as an independent actor.
Extracting Uranium from the sea water is completely different matter though I have to admit.
But even in that case there is the following problem: it is only an “idea” for the moment and so far it has not been made to become economically viable. But even if the technology is to advance to a level where it would be a feasible idea, still it does not necessarily mean that our country will be in a technological position to extract Uranium from the sea water. Let’s not forget that it is “Japan” which is working on this idea and even those guys have not been able to find an economically feasible way of doing it!
So I guess we are talking about predicting the future trend in energy production. Well that is not a very near term future, instead the threat of an attack by USA/Israel is fairly imminent, and therefore IN MY OPINION, the deterence issue is much more urgent to address!
By the way strictly from the energy point of view, I don’t understand why we should focus all this amount of our time and energy on nuclear energy, when we can’t even do the upstream section of our own oil industry and have to rely on foreigners? Why not focusing on solar energy and wind generated energy which are far cleaner, and safer and furthermore are “renewable”?
Does anyone know how much we have spent on nuclear energy? has anyone made any research on how much -in comparison- would have cost us to do research and development on the recycling of our urban sewage water? this is especially important in our country which has serious fresh water problem.
How much have we spent on the nuclear industry, and in comparison how much would have cost us to do research (or increase our research) in the field of metallurgy, so that we could make our own jet engines and we wouldn’t be dependent on Boeing, Airbus and Tupelev for our air fleet (not to mention our fighter aircrafts)?
R S Hck,
Re: Aug. 26th, 11:32pm – - Surely Pepe Escobar is well aware both Russia and China oppose any Iranian nuclear weapons programme while supporting the domestic nuclear power programme of Iran. I think Russia and China would have this position even if the US took no interest in the matter.
Russia all along intended to bring the Bushehr #1 nuclear reactor online as soon as it was ready, and this was not a change of policy as Kayhan states.
Russia has made it clear all along it accepts Iranian enrichment of LEU. Thus, for Kayhan to say Russia “has practically conceded” is a bit misleading because Russia openly has supported Iran’s domestic nuclear power programme.
Pirouz_2 / Cyrus
I don’t think there is much to be concerned right now for a long term over the horizon supply of nuclear fuel let say after ten years, for few reason but one important reason is as Iran’s export of NG expands to say Europe, which eventually will since Iran is the closest and least expensive alternative source of energy for Europe, Iran’s leverage for negotiations will expand like the situation Iran is currently exercise with Turkey. Obviously same will be true with regard to Pakistan and India, this is really what this US game is about to contain expansion of Iran’s influence under an American controlled umbrella.
It’s obvious that Ayatollah Khamenei’s statements about unity were general and not directed at any faction or group. He has spoken about unity often before and this isn’t new. Regarding direct talks with the US, it was a very big NO. In fact, the statements that he made about “his public statements” during his next public meeting, which was with university students, reinforces this.
Hope this complements the analysis of the Leveretts…. Comment on the information and analysis welcomed.
—-
Yesterday, we noted the latest public statement, in which Iran’s head of atomic energy proposed a joint consortium with Russia for fuel for the Bushehr nuclear reactor, and we looked to wider significance:
“The presentation is that Iran is a responsible, low-enriching state, working under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and with the help of Russia. In essence, it is a proposal to the Western powers of what a nuclear Iran would look like if sanctions were eased and/or concessions were made.
Salehi’s statement is therefore much more than a proposed arrangement for Bushehr and other plants. It is a challenge to Russia to endorse this vision of Iran’s nuclear future, giving Moscow the opportunity to serve as a broker between Iran and the West.”
An EA correspondent [in Iran] advances the discussion this morning:
“Ayatollah Khamenei has a range of people who have his ear and whose opinion he is willing to listen to. He hears them all, makes his assessments, sees what they have to offer.
Here we have Salehi with his pragmatic, nuclear technician’s world view. If the West can come to terms with that, Khamenei would then appraise the relative benefits of making an approach, judging the extent to which he sees Iran’s interests being served. Once he makes a decision, he can bring in political capital to bear ensure it is accepted.
The Supreme Leader not omnipotent. Instead, his political calculations must use the instincts, knowledge and experience, which he has gained in more than 20 years in power-broking, in order to manage the different and conflicting power centres in Iran with the ultimate aim of maintaining his central position. That is something which he has been pretty successful at so far.
Of course, the divisions within the conservative establishment are in contrast with the entirely mythological paradigm of political unity, which did not even hold during the Khomeini period. The different threads running through the fabric of the conservatives should be seen as threads that Khamenei can pull — or refuse to pull — depending on how he reads the situation. In that sense his titleof “rahbar” can be read in the sense of “conductor”, as in the conductor of an orchestra.
This time last year Ahmadinejad appeared eager for talks and the rest of the conservatives shot him down. At that time Khamenei either allowed this to happen a) because he had a better idea or b) because he actually desired that the President receive a put down or c) he could not risk preventing it because of the high cost in political capital or d) a bit of all of the above.
This year I think we can see clearly that he is calling for a ceasefire in the intra-conservative in-fighting before the international dimension is re-opened
So I didn’t read Khamenei’s speech of 18 August in the way that Scott Lucas read it [as a rejection of discussions with the US in the near-future]. I think it was quite natural that Khamenei refrain from expend valuable political capital at this point by appearing conducive to talks. In this critical situation, it is logical for him to hold himself above the fray and fall back on familiar rhetorical ground. He can play “hard to get” while allowing his carefully vetted ambassadors to act as intermediaries.
We probably should not read too much into what Khamenei says on the international issue at the moment. The domestic scene on the other hand, that’s a different story….”
http://enduringamerica dot com/2010/08/27/iran-special-the-supreme-leader-and-one-voice-on-nuclear-talks-with-us/
Scott
Cyrus: “Even Cheney accused the Russians of engaging in “energy blackmail” so the Iranians would be foolish to rely solely on RUssian nuclear fuel.”
Iranians are wiser than to gamble everything on Russia specially given the history of this country. However, that statement by Cheney makes me really laugh. Although Russians are good at blackmailing, Americans are not far behind, the only difference is in the style.
Even Cheney accused the Russians of engaging in “energy blackmail” so the Iranians would be foolish to rely solely on RUssian nuclear fuel.
“The CIA payments have continued despite concerns that the agency is backing corrupt officials, the report said.”
Karzai is going too far each time he feels bad for his country but retracts once he’s reminded who put him in place.
One can wonder how come the police in the west can easily find from helicopter a single marijuana plant in a balcony of a residence and the whole military might of the US & NATO can’t get rid of opium plants in Afghanistan! Aren’t able to find those huge areas and bomb them ? The answer is simple. They just don’t want. Because not only they make huge amounts of money out of this traffic but also send them to enemy nations (the English did this to Chinese). Recently, I heard Medvedev lamenting on the rising number of heroin addict in Russia!
Following is an article from a German historian about wikileaks and why this whole affair stinks, however you also learn interesting things from Pakistani general Gul and what is going on in Pakistan.
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/WikiLeaks/wikileaks.html
It reminds me of death squads directly managed by Dick Cheney operating in the ME (as reported by the respected journalist Seymour Hersh in New Yorker) who probably assassinated Benazir Butto.
Back to the Iran subject, I believe keeping the current Iranian regime is actually part of the plan with a continued sens of crisis that distracts people from other problems until the day Iran’s no more useful in this way.
30+ years of failing policies and misunderstanding regarding Iran ???!!! How could you believe this while you see that the American foreign policy has been throughout years and different presidents, the most constant and bipartisan policy ever.
If Brzezinski is calling to shoot down Israeli planes in case of attack through Iraki airspace, there should be a reason other than the love of Iran…
A good piece:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175289/
This is amazing and it simply shows the nature of the western media.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100827/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_usa_cia
This sentence is particularly shocking:
“The CIA payments have continued despite concerns that the agency is backing corrupt officials, the report said.”
It’s as if CIA payments to Afghani officials is not corruption!
The Iranian position is quite clear and this has been the case for a very long time. If American’s wish to correctly understand the situation, a review of the Leverett’s articles on the Iranian nuclear program is a must. It seems that there are still people out there who, for some reason, don’t understand Iran’s approach and the degree to which there is unity in Iran on this issue.
In case of attack, Iran will target Gulf states, Iraq, Jordan and Israel
http://www1.albawaba.com/main-headlines/case-attack-iran-will-target-gulf-states-iraq-jordan-and-israel
There are growing fears in the Gulf region of an imminent clash with Iran following the launch of Bushehr nuclear facility. Although Western circles downplay the importance of the facility to Iran’s efforts to develop atomic bombs, the Arab states in the Gulf region believe the potential of military action against Iran exists.
The ongoing threats towards Iran by Tel Aviv and Washington come with practical preparations for a possible war such as the deployment of Patriot missiles in Kuwait.
Within this framework, a senior commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards told Kuwait’s Al Rai newspaper that his country has prepared a plan for an all-out war, adding that “if Israel or the United States or both countries strike military facilities or economic sites in Iran, Iran will respond by bombing targets in all countries it will consider as “hostile.” According to him, all the countries who will allow to use their territory to attack Iran, will be targeted.
He revealed that the Revolutionary Guards would consider the entire Gulf region, Iraq, Jordan and Israel as part of the war, pointing out that “there are more than 100 U.S. military bases in the Gulf countries and all of them are within the range of our weapons.” He revealed that Iran will launch massive rocket attacks against Israel in the first stage. “Whatever the source of fire” Israel will be attacked first, he said. “All Israeli cities will be our target and we will not exclude the Dimona reactor,” he noted.
Stephen McGlinchey’s article is a fairly good summary of the situation.
However, I would quibble with the notion that “Iran does not want to negotiate”. I think it’s clear Iran DOES want to negotiate – about a lot of things. They just don’t want to negotiate on nuclear independence which is their legal right.
On the contrary, I see the US as the country that does not want to “negotiate”. Instead, Obama is correctly identified as “Bush Lite” because he wishes to DEMAND, rather than negotiate, to THREATEN rather than negotiate, to LIE rather than negotiate, and in the end submit to the demands of the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, the Israel Lobby, and anyone else who holds the reins of his political future.
The article is completely correct in saying that there are only two options left, which is exactly what I’ve been saying. Either the US accepts enrichment, or war. There is no third option, short of a massive “grand bargain” the value to Iran of which is so great that it would sacrifice even its uranium enrichment – and this option is ludicrous to suggest that the US AND Israel would accept.
So either BOTH the US AND Israel have to accept uranium enrichment – or there WILL be a war.
Of course, the article suggests that there is a third option – to try and strangle Iran for the next ten, twenty, a hundred years. This doesn’t seem terribly likely to me, as foreign policy events usually proceed to a conclusion or at least a “spike” in events far sooner than decades. The “Cold War”, arguably the longest conflict in US history, lasted only forty-odd years. The Korean War situation has lasted sixty. I don’t see the conflict between the US and Iran lasting anywhere near that sort of time, without either a rapprochement of sorts or war.
Here is the link for the Stephen McGlinchey’s article I posted earlier, if anyone likes to read the comments
http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/stephen-mcglinchey/why-attacking-iran-is-still-completely-nuts
Very interesting to read-
Why attacking Iran is still completely nuts
Author:
Stephen McGlinchey
Summary: The nuclear dispute will not be resolved by negotiation, but that doesn’t make an attack on Iran any less absurd.
Some time ago in April 2006, in what it seems were different times, then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw remarked that a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran over its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons under the cloak of a nuclear energy program was “completely nuts [1]”. That remark is widely regarded as the final ‘straw’ that facilitated his removal in a later cabinet reshuffle at the insistence of the Bush administration. Yet, it was a rare moment of honesty and wisdom from an experienced member of the foreign policy elite. Straw had driven a negotiation round with Iran outside of the realm of the Bush administration and in doing so championed an alternative to the polarized positions that had come to characterise the Iranian-American standoff on the Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Such diplomatic gestures, though well intentioned, will fail in the future as they have in the past and are continuing to do so in the present. Why? Because Iran has its sights set on gaining full mastery of the nuclear cycle, not on a deal (no matter how generous it seems) involving a compromise over enriched uranium from a third party nor anything other than full independence in the nuclear process.
Iran has continually played the compromise game in a characteristic brinkmanship strategy to scatter attention and play for time, before withdrawing and continuing on its pre-ordained path. Negotiators therefore proceed, and have proceeded, with the false assumption that Iran wishes to negotiate.
Similarly, the posture of the Bush administration (and the bulk of the international community) made it continually clear that there was no compromise on its insistence that Iran must not possess full, independent mastery over the nuclear cycle. When both sides begin a negotiation process with incompatible demands, and proceed to maintain those incompatibilities, either a conflict or a reappraisal of position from one or both parties is the inevitable eventuality. In this case, America, Israel and the international community must learn to live with a nuclear Iran, as the alternative – attacking it to remove its nuclear program – is much less palatable.
The quest to find a mutually acceptable way for the international community, most vocally America, to tolerate the reality of the Iran having a nuclear programme dates back to 2003 when the EU-3 (Britain, Germany and France) collectively pursued a diplomatic solution to the issue. Faced with American insistence that the Iran was not to be trusted with enriching uranium due to the possibility that this could be used to build nuclear weapons, and the general climate internationally considering the Bush doctrine and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, there were genuine concerns that a major regional incident would unfold including a possible preventive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by either Israel, America or both in tandem. After all, this had happened before in 1981 when Israel secretly bombed a French-built Iraqi nuclear plant over fears that Iraq might use it for a nuclear weapons program.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s arrival as Iranian president in 2005 presented a major problem for the negotiation process. The overt international mistrust in Iran and its intentions, developed over 25 years of witnessing rogue behaviour and state support for terrorism, had been downplayed (though certainly not forgotten) during Mohammad Khatami’s presidency. Ahmadinejad’s arrival coincided with a resurgence in suspicion of Iran due chiefly to the belligerent posture of the new president and his government. His actions provoke opposition often by default, particularly regarding the perceived ‘personality’ of Iran internationally, in much the same way as President George W Bush did of America amongst nations opposed to his foreign policy posture as he polarised friends and allies alike. The result of this dynamic has been to reinforce stereotypical attitudes and fears over Iran’s character that had somewhat abated, or were at the very least open to interpretation, during Khatami’s presidency. One example that can be attributed to Ahmadinejad personally is the resurgence of an openly hostile position towards Israel together with overt holocaust revisionism, harking back to the mantra of the revolutionary father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.
The EU-3 process failed to reach a conclusive deal, though it did have some success in stalling the Iranian programme and providing time for a future deal to be worked out. A change of administration in America, together with a highly publicised promise delivered personally by the president via video message to ‘reach out a hand’ to Iran, brought America into direct involvement in the successor P5+1 negotiations which included the original EU-3, China, Russia and America. This was a landmark considering that there have been no direct official negotiations between America and Iran for almost 30 years. Despite this, no deal with any realistic chance of long term success looks likely to be made.
Why? The international order as we have come to know it and the Islamic Republic of Iran are incompatible. This is the inescapable fact of international politics that no sugar coating or talk of potential reformist leadership in Iran can mask. Iran will continue to enrich uranium, and continue to generally do what it likes in spite of international diplomatic rambling, much as it has done since 1979. It is not impossible that some deal will be fashioned, but if so, it is highly unlikely that it will serve as anything more than another stalling move in a larger political game by Iran in which all roads lead, and always have led, to full and independent mastery of the nuclear cycle.
Ahmadinejad recently noted that America under President Obama had not changed from the America of George W Bush in its foreign policy as applied to the middle east. Obama has stalled on closing Guantanamo Bay despite promising to do so, has not altered the American refusal to countenance a truly independent Iranian ‘civilian’ nuclear program, and he has not changed course in Afghanistan or Iraq. Similarly, support for Israel, the frequent demon in Iranian domestic discourse regarding America, has been retained (though with some qualifications). The friendly appearance and conciliatory rhetoric of the Obama administration, the Nobel Peace Prize award, and its refusal to use the term ‘war on terror’, do not detract from the reality that regarding foreign policy towards the middle east, nothing of substance has indeed changed. The fact that arguably the world’s most notorious ‘elected’ statesman has pointed towards this elephant in the room does not mean that it should be ignored. America may have not changed much recently as Ahmadinejad laments; but then again, neither has Iran.
The Islamic Republic of Iran owes its existence to its identity as a reaction against the western way of life and of doing business. To come to a conciliation with the international community, spearheaded by the American insistence that Iran must never have full mastery of the nuclear cycle is in essence dismantling the foundations and the pride of the regime. From its inception it was a lone actor, surviving in spite of the uproar within the international community over the 1979 hostage crisis and a gruelling war with Iraq, which it did not start. In short, it has a siege mentality soldered into its psyche.
Iran has always been a nation that despite different manifestations in its internal shape and character has aspired to a greater stature internationally, or at the very least regional predominance. For example, the Shah of Iran whose rule was brought to an end by the 1979 revolution that created the Islamic Republic of Iran, had harboured grand designs for Iran as the premier nation of the middle east and the Persian Gulf from early in his reign. This vision, although resisted by Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy was shared by later American administrations, particularly the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations which generously armed Iran with advanced weaponry and aircraft in the mid-1970s at levels dwarfing its regional peers, including Israel, to enable it to transition from a client state to a security exporter. The current regime is in this sense, no different to the Shah, with the significant caveat that the regional and global role Iran was to play under the Shah was largely in line with western desires, while the role envisioned of the Islamic Republic is perceived as deeply antagonistic at best.
Put simply, the Islamic Republic of Iran does not consider itself the pariah state the international community, especially America, sees it as. It views itself as an ambassador for a non-western way of life, free of a perceived American global hegemony. It additionally is imbued with an incredibly adversarial and over-simplified view of the world, especially of America and Israel, another legacy of Khomeini, in which everything tends to be reduced to notions of good and evil.
Fast forward to the present day, supposedly a new era in international politics, inspired by a multilateral and diplomatic American administration, led by a man who appears in every sense to be the opposite of George W Bush, Barack Obama. The problem of course is, Iran. That ever present thorn on so many a president’s foot, is in danger of revealing Obama as another thinly veiled president of ‘more of the same’ when it comes to foreign policy. It is an often observed trend in international politics, particularly American politics, that foreign policy rarely changes. Rather it slowly evolves. President Truman famously declared that he saw foreign policy as residing above the partisan divide. In American politics and the politics of national security, his words have indeed proven largely accurate, and Iran is a valid case to that effect.
Obama has inherited a foreign policy momentum in the middle east that he has chosen to see through, rather than halt. There have been changes in language and posture, such as the careful jettisoning of the term ‘war on terror’, yet the general thrust of the Bush legacy in the region remains intact. Nowhere is this more visible than in the Iran case. It was highly doubtful even to the most faithful in the change camp that Obama would drastically re-appraise the Iraq and Afghanistan situations due to the fact that the situation on the ground in both theatres was far from ‘mission accomplished’, and in any case Congress seems to be doing that for him as its revisionism increases and its fiscal reticence increases. But in the case of Iran, Obama made visible signs that he was prepared to listen, to ‘reach out a hand’, towards Iran. This constituted a clear and incontrovertible gesture toward a 180 degree turn in policy. This was a rare occurrence, which will certainly go down in history as an early sign of naiveté and perhaps of arrogance.
As Iran marches on with its nuclear program, with any possibility of domestic revisionism dying when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ‘triumphed’ in the allegedly rigged election of 2009, Obama has reverted to the familiar constant left in place prior to his arrival in the Whitehouse of keeping the option to attack Iran ‘on the table’, as confirmed recently by a high level official. It begs the question of what exactly Obama expected the Iranian leadership to talk to him about when he reached out his hand? After all, he has always maintained the precondition that Iran must negotiate on its nuclear program (a Bush leftover). Yet, it is clear that this insistence is the very factor that has rallied Iran, in another episode in its now famous belligerence towards America.
Iran will never negotiate on the independence of its nuclear program, something that pre-dates Ahmadinejad’s reign and has been a steady goal of the regime. What is less widely known is that whilst Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was talking of embracing the west in a ‘dialogue of civilisations’ and appearing to be a reformist character, Iran was engaged in a full-scale, clandestine nuclear program that reached as far back as the 1980s. With that in mind, it is worth noting that nuclear proliferation is an all around winner when viewed within the distorted logic of middle eastern politics. Firstly it provides much needed deterrence from attack from a nuclear-armed Israel and from the ‘Great Satan’ itself, America. Secondly, it provides additional strength for the faltering clerical regime, focusing the domestic discourse on the embattled and besieged nation of Iran and redirecting sympathy and loyalty to the leadership. It is via a combination of these two factors that the solution-less and reciprocal logic of the entire situation becomes clear. In this case, change rather than continuity is looking increasingly unlikely in Washington despite the supposed presence of ‘change’ in the White House itself.
The stark truth is that the international community, and America, simply must accept Iran’s nuclear program. This is not a desirable admission, nor is it a triumph for anyone, including the Iranians themselves who would presumably more happily receive the funds spent on their own faltering economy and increasingly dire social situation. Yet, it must be seen within the deterrence paradigm, and as such, no realistic threat to anyone. If we are to accept that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a rational actor wishing to survive and prosper, then we must accept that it is fully aware that using its nuclear arsenal or placing a bomb into the hands of a terrorist group such as Hezbollah or Hamas would be national suicide at worst and suicide for the regime itself at best. Its alleged proliferation is therefore a non-issue outside of standard international concerns when a country goes nuclear.
The alternative, when viewed through the increasingly Bush-like Obama (when it comes to Iran) is to attack Iran and open up pandora’s box in the middle east. Something that is potentially so toxic that talk of World War III is surely not an exaggeration. Israel must continue to be restrained from launching an offensive against Iran, for the same reasons. Additionally, attacking Iran would put the domestic reform movement in Iran back twenty years as it would embolden support for the regime as the Iran-Iraq war did, as nationalism frequently trumps politics.
There is simply no middle ground to tread. Talk of containment and sanctions is unhelpful and tiresome in this case. Iran has been dealt every card in the containment deck short of direct force for over thirty years, and has prevailed intact, somehow. A middle ground cannot be possible when both sides insist on mutually exclusive postulates.
Iran is a rogue state in every sense of the word, but its history proves that it is also a rational actor in international politics. It must also be stated for factual purposes that neither the Islamic Republic of Iran, nor the Shah’s Iran before it ever attacked another nation. Consequently, there are only two options on the table: either to continue strangling Iran from a distance, standing tall and hoping that its internal organic political movement will enlighten or revolutionise the stale, corrupt clerical regime or, secondly, initiate the end of the Iranian nuclear program by force (most probably outside the bounds of international law). This option involves unleashing potential hell on the region that would make the current fallout from the war on terror look like a picnic. One would hope that the American military is genuinely too fatigued (or perhaps too sensible?) to genuinely push for such a mission, the Obama administration has learned the lessons of miscalculation and arrogance in foreign policy from its predecessor, and that the Israelis don’t take the initiative and do something they will regret as recent news reports suggest they are considering at a high level of urgency.
Therefore, in every sense of the word and for every sensible reason ‘on the table’, attacking Iran in any sense, at any time, remains completely nuts.
Ugh! Bad grammar typo!
“wouldn’t not significantly” should be “would not significantly”
In regards to the Leveretts’ post, also see Pepe Escobar in today’s Asia Times:
THE ROVING EYE
Red alert! The Russians are coming!
www dot atimes dot com/atimes/South_Asia/LH27Df02.html
Quote
All that is nuclear turns into gold
The Bushehr nuclear power plant – the first in the Middle East – launched jointly last Saturday by Russia and Iran, unmistakably establishes Iran as one of the world’s 29 nuclear power generating nations. But it’s also a major coup for the Russian nuclear industry, in this case represented by state-run Rosatom.
Six months ago, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that Rosatom would be able to build 25% of the world’s nuclear plants (it currently stands at 16%). Atomstroiexport, Rosatom’s civilian construction arm, will build a major plant in Turkey, and has also set sights on Bangladesh and Vietnam. Bushehr, which has cost more than $1 billion, will generate 2% of Iran’s electricity. Of the four reactors to be built in Turkey, to the cost of $20 billion, each will produce 20% more energy than Bushehr.
Rosatom’s chief executive Sergei Kiriyenko has been spinning that Bushehr is a “big international project” which involved more than 10 European Union (EU) and Asia-Pacific countries. What no one really knows is why this has taken so long, since Russia agreed to take over in 1992 (Bushehr actually started way back in 1974 by German Kraftwerk Union, a merger of Siemens and AEG. Siemens pulled out of Iran in 1980).
Everything has been invoked to justify the non-stop delays – US and UN sanctions, Tehran’s suspicions of Moscow, Tehran actually not paying its bills on time. Now this is all water under the bridge. Kiriyenko also has made a point to stress that Bushehr “coincides with Russia’s position that any country in the world has the right to nuclear energy for peaceful use” – as long as it is monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). According to the Tehran-Moscow agreement, Russia supplies the nuclear fuel for Bushehr and disposes of the spent rods (so Iran cannot use them to extract plutonium), with everything monitored by the IAEA. Hundreds of Russian engineers will remain working at Bushehr until 2013 before Tehran takes over completely…
Moscow knows that what’s really at stake in the whole Iran nuclear dossier is that the US – with its huge nuclear arsenal – and both Britain and France – with their small nuclear arsenals – simply don’t want to have yet another country from the developing world (like India and Pakistan) crash into their cozy nuclear weapon club. And neither is Russia interested in contending with an extra strategic challenge, a possibly nuclear-armed Iran (thus Moscow playing a constant game of geopolitical chess). What both the West and Moscow really want is to maintain the current status quo.
And that leads us to the heart of the matter; as long as the US, as well as Britain and France, don’t accept Iranian uranium enrichment, there’s simply no possibility whatsoever of extracting Iranian cooperation on a global, non-proliferation nuclear agenda. Meanwhile, the Russian nuclear industry will merrily keep cashing in.
End Quote
Obama Resists Pressure for Red Line on Iran’s Nuclear Capability
original dot antiwar dot com/porter/2010/08/26/obama-resists-pressure-for-red-line-on-irans-nuclear-capability/
I’m not sure I agree with Porter on Obama’s position here. I think Porter is reaching, hoping Obama really does distinguish between a “nuclear capable” Iran and an Iran with nuclear weapons.
Given how many times Obama has said Iran has a “nuclear weapons program” I have to say I don’t see how Porter can extrapolate from a few remarks from Obama that MIGHT if you twist and bend them indicate that Obama makes that distinction.
Porter is probably right about Gates, though, being more of a hawk on Iran than most people think.
I’m also not convinced that this quote represents Iran’s official position”
Quote
Iran denies any intention of making nuclear weapons, but has made no secret that it wants to have enough low enriched uranium to convince potential adversaries that it has that option.
At a 2005 dinner in Tehran, Hassan Rowhani, then secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that Iran didn’t need a nuclear weapon, as long as it had the “mastery of the fuel cycle” as a deterrent to external aggression.
End Quote
You could just as easily make the case thatg what Rowhani meant was that once Iran had fully functioning nuclear facilities, those facilities would not be attacked because, just as in the recent Bushehr attack discussions, it would be both dangerous and illegal to attack functioning nuclear facilities which could cause a Chernobyl-like disaster.
And even if Iran recognized the existence of a “Japan option”, and I assume it does, as I’ve argued before, there is no reason to believe Iran isn’t aware of the fact that having one or a few nuclear weapons wouldn’t not significantly change its strategic position vis-a-vis Israel or the US, and therefore a “break out” option would not nearly be as effective in its case as it would be for, say, Japan.
Then there’s this quote:
Quote
Obama used an Apr. 1 interview with CBS News to distinguish between Iran’s “trying to develop the capacity to develop nuclear weapons” from a decision to actually possess nuclear weapons.
“They might decide that, once they have that capacity that they’d hold off right at the edge – in order not to incur more sanctions,” he observed. Obama talked about a new round of international sanctions as his response to that problem.
End Quote
Well, if Obama is going to sanction Iran for even having the “capacity to develop nuclear weapons”, then what is the difference between that and the Bush attitude? Once again, if Iran masters the fuel cycle, it will HAVE that capability regardless of ANY Iranian attitude toward nuclear weapons. Is Obama too stupid to comprehend this? I find that hard to believe.
All in all, I find Porter’s article disappointing and indicative more of cognitive dissonance than any real evidence that Obama is anything more than “Bush Lite”.