Posted on 12/03/2004 10:38:32 PM PST by DoctorZIn
Top News Story
Iran To Reject IAEA Resolution In Near Future - Hardline Paper
Posted Thursday, December 2, 2004
E-mail this page
Printer-friendly page
PARIS-TEHRAN First of Dec. (IPS) “The resolution that the international nuclear watchdog passed on Iran in November and all its clauses that are imposed on Iran would be declared as void in coming months”, an advisor to the Iranian leader predicted on Wednesday.
The forecast came two days after Iran reached a painful agreement with Britain, France and Germany in Vienna and as a consequence, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) saved Tehran from sanctions.
“Maybe this predicament would surprise, but for sure, in a not much far future, you would stand witness that the resolution the IAEA agreed on Iran in November preventing our country from reaching nuclear technology for peaceful purposes would be declared void and non-executable”, wrote Mr. Hoseyn Shari’atmadari, a high-ranking intelligence officer appointed by Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i as Executive Editor of the radical daily “Keyhan”.
Maybe this predicament would surprise, but in a not much far future the IAEA resolution in November would be declared void and non-executable
He was referring to a resolution the European Union’s so-called “Big Three” had presented the IAEA’s Board of Directors after two days of intensive and critical talks with Iranian negotiators and approved by consensus on 29 November 2004, after Tehran satisfied both the IAEA and the Troika by accepting officially that it would extend suspension of uranium enriching to all its installations, including up to 30 centrifuges it wanted to run for so-called Research and Development purposes.
The resolution, -- a “compromise” between “red lines” from both American and Iranian hard liners -- urges Tehran to “sustain” suspension of uranium enriching activities, which it also concedes that is “voluntary and non-legally binding” measure accepted by Iran for “confidence building”.
While Iranian diplomats who worked out the resolution with their European counterparts hailed the resolution as a “victory over the United States”, independent observers termed it as the “best text under present conditions”.
“The resolution does certainly not satisfy the Iranians or the Americans, but at the same time it helps both of them to save face”, one Iranian diplomat told Iran Press Service on condition of anonymity.
“People who have not enough money to buy a Mercedes car should satisfy themselves with a Peykan (the popular locally made car) and not complain”, Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, the middle-rank cleric who is in charge of the controversial issue with both the European Troika and the IAEA told journalists during a press conference on Tuesday in Tehran.
“We also would have preferred a Mercedes, but for the time being, Europe is our Peykan”, he explained, thanking European negotiators who helped Tehran to escape possible sanctions from the United Nations Security Council, a measure Washington was pressing the IAEA and its European partners.
According to another Iranian diplomat, support provided by Ayatollah Khameneh’i to the Iranian negotiating delegation in the one hand and the understanding and good will from the European representatives on the other were the “key elements” paving the way for placing Iran’s nuclear case at the IAEA in an “ordinary process”.
However, after two days of silence, hard liners among the ruling Iranian conservatives went on the offensive, accusing the negotiators of “sell out” and “unconditional surrender” to the Europeans, “their American masters and the Zionist circles”.
The 29 November Resolution of the Board of Directors is a great lure the Europeans laid for us
“What the Europeans have achieved is the sustained and full closure of all our nuclear activities”, wrote both Keyhan and “Jomhouri Eslami” (Islamic Republic) that belongs to Mr. Khameneh’i.
“The 29 November Resolution of the Board of Directors is a great lure the Europeans laid for us. Not only it is not positive, but is a colonialist diktat that we can not accept under any condition”, Jomhouri Eslami added.
“Our brothers who negotiated the Paris Agreement and the IAEA Resolution claim that after this November meeting, Iran’s case at the IAEA would follow an ordinary path and add that this is a victory, but they do not explain that once full suspension of uranium enriching accepted, there would remain no case for the Agency to address it”, observed Mr. Shari’atmadari.
“What our diplomats achieved (in Vienna) is not a victory, as they claim, for while the Europeans have got all they wanted and the Americans half of their demands, we reached ten per cent only”, Mr. Ali Larijani, the personal Representative of the Leader at the Supreme Council on National Security tipped as a runner to the next presidential elections told the Iranian students news agency ISNA. ENDS IRAN NUCLEAR 11204
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
BTTT
Where are the Subs!!
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”
Bump!
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=10673
WTO votes on membership for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Saturday, December 04, 2004
GENEVA: The World Trade Organization will vote for the first time at a meeting on Dec. 13 and 14 on requests by Iraq and Afghanistan to join the body as well as a repeated demand by Iran, a statement said on Friday.
The accession requests along with other issues such as a report into the latest round of trade negotiations, will be heard at the next General Council meeting of the 148 member states.
Iraq asked for full WTO membership in October, eight months after having been given observer status. Afghanistan, which also has observer status, applied to join the WTO in April 2003.
There had been speculation that some countries would only support Iraq's request for observership if Washington agreed to alter its stance on Iran.
Enrichment resumption in 6 months, says Iran
TEHRAN, Dec 3: Iran will resume enriching uranium after a maximum of six months, powerful former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani vowed on Friday, reaffirming that Tehran's freeze on nuclear fuel cycle work is only temporary.
"The last word is after this period, which I do not assume will exceed six months ... we must seriously and firmly follow enrichment programmes and use the very important advantages of nuclear technology," he said.
"So far, we have reached the point that we accept to suspend parts of our activities for a period that was not necessary at all. Our negotiators have tried to shorten this period and we interpret it to be about two, three months up to six months," the prominent cleric said at Friday prayers.
Earlier this week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) spared Iran the fate of being referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions after Tehran agreed in a deal with Britain, France and Germany to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
Rafsanjani also had sharp words for the positions of the IAEA and Western countries during negotiations over the nuclear programme. "We should be dissatisfied with them. They owe to us and have done injustice to us. Iran's activities are (allowed) under legal rights given to all countries to use nuclear technology for non-military purposes."
Referring to the US objection towards Iran's access to the fuel cycle, Rafsanjani said: "They are after the free home, oil reserves and this important geographical region, which have been taken from them after the Iran's Islamic revolution." -AFP
http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/04/top14.htm
Iran holds war games near Iraq
Tehran, Iran - Iran's army launched its largest military exercise on Friday near the Iraqi border, state-run radio reported.
General Ali Salimi, the army's chief commander, was quoted as saying the "Followers of the Supreme Leader" exercises were "the biggest in the history of the army" in number of units and operations.
More than 120 000 air and ground troops were to take part in the war games across more than 100 000 square kilometers in five western provinces near the Iraqi border. It was not immediately clear why the location was chosen or how long the exercise would last.
Tanks, armoured personnel carriers, jet fighters and helicopters will be deployed in the exercise, General Amir Karimi, a spokesman, was quoted as saying.
Army officials contacted by AP journalists on Friday refused to comment.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1630828,00.html
Powell: U.S. Can't Hunt Iran Nukes in 'Every Cave'
Fri Dec 3, 2004 12:40 PM ETWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Friday Washington had no way to force Iran to allow U.N. inspectors unrestricted access to suspected nuclear sites despite U.S. doubts Tehran would come clean on its own.
"I can't make sure it is going to happen," he told Reuters in an interview as he prepares to leave office. "You can't look in every cave that might be in Iran."
Powell also said Iran's agreement with Europeans last month to suspend some suspicious nuclear activities was inadequate, but said the international community must still press Iran to reveal the full extent of its weapons program.
The Bush administration worries Iran may be developing a nuclear weapon at secret sites, where it may continue to work, while it has agreed to open other facilities to inspectors.
But Powell acknowledged Washington has failed to win international support, even from its major European allies, to demand unrestricted access.
"We have to remain uneasy about this (agreement) because it is still only a suspension. ... We really need an end to that program," he said.
"It is a question of whether or not the international community ... will be diligent and will be persistent in pressing the Iranians to give us full disclosure of their programs."
This week the U.N. nuclear watchdog rejected U.S. demands that Iran be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible economic sanctions and it passed an EU-sponsored resolution calling on Iran to freeze uranium enrichment activities. It noted the freeze was voluntary and non-binding.
Diplomats and arms experts said the U.N. inspection process had been dealt a severe blow this week when EU negotiators gave in to Iran's demands that a clause insisting it grant the watchdog "unrestricted access" be removed from a draft resolution.
Washington says oil-rich Iran is developing weapons under cover of a nuclear energy program. Tehran denies this, insisting its atomic ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity.
Taking Europe for a Ride
Amir Taheri
In a manner that recalls haggling in a Persian bazaar, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran are engaged in a tussle about the meaning of their recently concluded bargain over Tehran’s nuclear program.
Earlier this month Tehran agreed to “completely freeze” its uranium enrichment program in exchange for economic and technological goodies from the European Union. But just moments after the deal was announced Tehran declared that the promised “freeze” was neither complete nor permanent.
“This is a voluntary and temporary freeze,” Hassan Rouhani, the mulla who headed Tehran’s team in talks with the EU said. “We can end it whenever necessary.”
Then Muhammad El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, reported that the “freeze”, had ended before it started because Tehran insisted it should keep 20 centrifuges running, producing hexafluoride gases needed to make atomic bombs. A couple of days later Tehran came back with another promise to honor the deal, thus calming the game and postponing confrontation for a few more months. In another context, and another time, this was known as the “ cheat-and-retreat” tactic.
Cartesians would describe the method used by the European Union to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions as “drowning the fish”. In other words the EU has chosen to completely miss the point. The Iranian nuclear program is a geostrategic issue that concerns vital aspects of regional and international politics, not a technical one about centrifuges and a temporary “freeze” in uranium enrichment. (Incidentally, the deal left out Iran’s plutonium program altogether.)
Let us make a few points clear before tackling the real issue.
First, the problem between the IAEA and Tehran is not about an attempt by big powers, especially the United States, to deprive Iran of its rights. A recent article in The Washington Post presents the whole issue as an attempt by the Bush administration to prevent poor little Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons against Russia, Pakistan, and Israel. Iran may well be threatened by the countries mentioned; and, even if it is not, its leaders may have the right to mistakenly assume such a threat. Iran also has the right to develop nuclear weapons. What it does not have the right to do is to continue enjoying the benefits of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a signatory while violating it by developing a nuclear weapons’ “surge capacity”.
Contrary to what The Washington Post article pretends, nobody is trying to impose anything “imperialistic” or “neoconic” on the mullas who may or may not be as angelic as he thinks. All that is demanded is that they either comply with the NPT or get out and do as they please. Membership of he NPT is not obligatory for any country. Many countries that wanted to develop nuclear weapons stayed out of the NPT — among them France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, Egypt and, more recently, North Korea.
But even then this is not the real issue. Everyone knows that the current Iranian leaders have decided to develop a nuclear weapons capacity as part of the National Defense Doctrine that they put place in the mid-1990s. The nuclear capacity is one of the three pillars of that doctrine. (The other two are a large ground army to sustain heavy casualties in a long war, and a missiles program to make up for the weakness of the Iranian Air Force. All that is no secret. EU ambassadors in Tehran would know this by reading the newspapers, following the debates in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and listening to Friday sermons by establishment mullas.
My guess is that the EU knows that Tehran is determined to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity. The EU must also know that Tehran will not abandon a key element of its defense doctrine to please powers that it regards as “satanic”.
So, why is the EU playing this charade?
One reason is that EU is run by techno-bureaucrats masquerading as politicians. The techno-bureaucrat cannot conceive of an adversary that does not play the game by his rules. We are witnessing a clash of cultures. On the European side we have the products of a society in which politics is defined as the art of distributing resources, accommodating differences, and placing laws made by consensus above faith and ideology. In that type of politics there is no right and wrong, no good and evil, as such — only legal and illegal.
The practitioner of that type of politics interprets his lack of critical judgment as tolerance of diversity.
On the other side we have the Khomeinist politicians who regard their brand of Islam as the only true religion that should, one day, conquer the world. They claim that, with the Soviet Union in the dust bin of history, their regime offers the only alternative vision of the world to that of the United States.
They see the Middle East as the immediate battleground between the two visions because both the Islamic Republic and the United States are now committed to changing the regional status quo. The US wants to do so by fostering democratic regimes, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. The Islamic Republic wants to unite the region under the banner of Khomeinist Islam. The US is promoting a two-state solution for the Palestine-Israel conflict. The Islamic Republic is committed to a one-state solution, to be known as Palestine, in which Jews would ultimately become a minority. The US, and the West in general, regard their concept of human rights as the highest of values. The present leaders in Tehran see it, in the words of Khomeini, as a “Jewish-Crusader plot” to undermine Islamic culture.
The mullas know that, sooner or later, these two visions will clash in the Middle East. They are not prepared to let the US remold the Middle East after its own fashion. They also believe that they can win the battle of ideas. Their only fear is that, at some point, American military power would not only check their ambitions but threaten their regime. They see nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the use of American military power to thwart their plans for the kind of Middle East that the late ayatollah dreamed of.
“Had Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would still be in power,” says Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the key figures in the Tehran establishment.
The EU knows that it cannot prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal. The diplomatic circus, in which the IAEA is enlisted as clown, is aimed at fudging the issue by nurturing false hopes of a negotiated solution. Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, let the cat out of the bag when he said that all that the EU wanted was “to prevent another Iraq.” In other words, the EU has organized this Punch-and-Judy show to deprive the US, regarded by Barnier & Co as a “rogue hyper-power”, of an excuse to use force against the mullas. This may well be a laudable objective. But it does not answer the real question: Can the region, and, indeed, the world, including the EU, be comfortable with the prospect of a regime with messianic ambitions being armed with nuclear weapons in the Middle East?
WTO votes on membership for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Saturday, December 04, 2004
GENEVA: The World Trade Organization will vote for the first time at a meeting on Dec. 13 and 14 on requests by Iraq and Afghanistan to join the body as well as a repeated demand by Iran, a statement said on Friday.
The accession requests along with other issues such as a report into the latest round of trade negotiations, will be heard at the next General Council meeting of the 148 member states.
Iraq asked for full WTO membership in October, eight months after having been given observer status. Afghanistan, which also has observer status, applied to join the WTO in April 2003.
There had been speculation that some countries would only support Iraq's request for observership if Washington agreed to alter its stance on Iran.
Brownback's Iran, North Korea, Egypt Provisions Pass Senate in Omnibus Spending Bill
Funds pro-democracy and human rights efforts, directs funds to approved organizations
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today applauded passage of three amendments he authored in the Omnibus Appropriations bill under State Department and foreign operations funding. The amendments appropriate and direct pro-democracy and human rights funding in Iran, North Korea and Egypt.
The bill directs $3 million for pro-democracy efforts in Iran, $2 million for a human rights conference on North Korea, and redirects pro-democracy funding in Egypt to the United States Agency for International Development without prior approval of the government of Egypt.
“We must take proactive steps to promote democracy and human rights abroad,” Brownback said. “North Korea and Iran, the remaining members of the Axis of Evil, are focal points for anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, pro-terrorist efforts around the world. We will bring key leaders and stakeholders together to map out how we can bring freedom to the people of Iran and North Korea. I am also happy that we are able to redirect pro-democracy funding for Egypt to an appropriate forum. It is an abuse of taxpayer funds to have these funds spent at the discretion of the government of Egypt.”
The Omnibus bill includes $2 million for an International Conference on North Korean Human Rights. This conference will bring together experts as well as human rights advocates and non-governmental organizations, for the purpose of discussing steps to address human rights for North Koreans living under the Kim Jong-Il regime. The conference will be held in South Korea and hosted by Freedom House.
With respect to Iran, the bill funds $3 million for programs that promote democracy. A portion can be used for funding a conference in the United States to bring together Iranian dissident groups, human rights advocates, and non-governmental organizations to discuss the state of the democracy movement and human rights in Iran.
The Egyptian government is currently the only government in the world that has discretion over the manner in which U.S. funding for democracy programs is spent. The Brownback amendment will give USAID the same authority in Egypt as it has everywhere else in the world: the discretion to control and oversee how American funds for democracy programs are used. There is currently no mechanism in place to ensure that the government of Egypt appropriately allocates such funds for democracy promotion.
Brownback is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and chairman of the East Asia Subcommittee.
Bush administration suspects Iran of developing ICBM
WASHINGTON The interception of technology shipments to Iran is fueling U-S suspicions that Tehran officials are trying to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile.A top Bush administration official tells The Associated Press the weapon could reach Europe and possibly the U-S and would be capable of carrying nuclear warheads and chemical and biological weapons.A U-S intelligence report says North Korea, China and parts of the former Soviet Union have helped Iran pursue "longer-range ballistic missiles."
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1257793.htm
Broadcast: 03/12/2004
Armitage says diplomacy the best path on Iran issue
Reporter: Maxine McKew
MAXINE McKEW: George W Bush's November re-election still has allies guessing about the thrust of foreign policy.
Will the President use his second term to consolidate or to pursue an even more ambitious agenda?
High on the list of concerns - the need to forge a workable solution for Israelis and Palestinians, what to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions and North Korea.
As regards the latter, there's already talk in some Washington circles about the need for regime change in Pyongyang.
When it comes to Canberra, our Foreign Minister will be dealing with a new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.
She replaces the outgoing Colin Powell.
Also heading out the door is Richard Armitage, Powell's deputy, and someone so well connected in this part of the world that he's regarded as an honorary Aussie.
Just ahead of his retirement, I spoke with the US assistant secretary of state.
MAXINE McKEW: Richard Armitage, nice to be talking to you again.
RICHARD ARMITAGE, US ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, good evening.
MAXINE McKEW: As you get ready to quit diplomacy, are you convinced there is going to be life after the State Department?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: (Chuckles) I know there is.
I've watched some of my colleagues go out and prove the fact.
MAXINE McKEW: The fact that you and Secretary Powell are both leaving at the same time at the end of the first Bush Administration, should anything in particular be read into this?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: No, this was always "buy one, get one free" with Secretary Powell.
We - it's kind of like - I describe Balkan policy in together, out together.
We came to the conclusion that it's a time to stack arms.
Are you familiar with the term?
MAXINE McKEW: Not really.
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, your diggers will understand it.
There is a time to carry arms in combat and there is a time to stack arms.
And it's time for us to put a little intellectual capital in the bank.
We've been making withdrawals for four years with no deposits.
It's time to sit back a little bit and put some intellectual deposits into the bank.
MAXINE McKEW: And the new secretary, Condoleezza Rice, how do you think she is going to differ in style and approach from Secretary Powell?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, she's, I think her coming here is going to be a very good thing.
Her closeness to the President, I think, should be a good signal for the foreign service, to the State Department.
I think she will be very faithful servant of the President.
And I'm looking for some pretty good things.
She knows all the players internationally.
I don't think there's going to be any fumbles or dropped balls here.
And I'm pretty bullish on this.
MAXINE McKEW: In terms of Washington decision-making, is one of the key issues for this second term going to be the extent to which all the various agencies and government departments can better coordinate their activities?
I ask this because, of course, it has been a consistent problem that's been thrown up by all of the post-September 11 analysis.
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, there is no question that we've had our differences with other departments and they've had their differences with us.
The President won a clear mandate.
I think it's quite natural that he wants to put a team together that will allow him to sort of change the face of American politics and also change the face of how America is seen overseas.
I know, with great satisfaction, the President's visit to Canada on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week where he made a big point of the fact that he's going to spend a lot of energy and political capital in this second term to developing multilateralism.
MAXINE McKEW: Is that something of a regret as you leave this job, that, in fact, there is a diminution of affection for America around the world, in some places outright hostility?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I agree with you, there is a diminution of affection, for a lot of complicated reasons, some of them, actually, not our fault.
Some of them frustrations directed at a lack of transparency in certain country's governments.
But yeah, it concerns me greatly.
I think it is a concern to the President, hence his stated point in Canada that he's going to spend some serious energy trying to redevelop and reconnect with the world.
MAXINE McKEW: In fact, I think you said on one of your visits to Australia that you regretted that America had exported a lot of its anger to the rest of the world.
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Yeah, we - traditionally I think Americans support hope and enthusiasm and opportunity, but after 9-11 it was anger and our fear that we exported.
I think we're coming back to centre a little on that.
We're mindful of the dangers from terrorism.
Certainly our friends in Australia, who have struggled so hard against terrorism themselves, are mindful of the dangers.
But we have to go on and live in the world and we look forward to playing a proper and appropriate and good role in the world.
MAXINE McKEW: The big question for allies such as Australia, of course, is the thrust of foreign policy in this second term.
What do you think we're likely to see - an even more energetic agenda or a period of consolidation?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: I'm not sure how to answer the question.
I think what you will see is an attempt to reach out not only to traditional allies but to develop our relationship with others.
I think in the Middle East, for instance, there are new circumstances with the death of chairman Arafat.
There is the possibility that the Palestinian leadership might come forward who is interested in peace and negotiation with Israel.
So there is a certain flux going on in the international community.
We want to make that a positive change and do our part to make it a better and safer world.
MAXINE McKEW: George W Bush is a president who has set very ambitious goals in terms of foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, as you've mentioned there.
His critics, on the other hand, around the world would say they are dangerous goals.
Having worked for him for four years, how confident are you that history will vindicate his approach?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: I think, if you look at the last four years - I don't want to be solely in the position of blowing our own horn, but a lot has happened and beyond Afghanistan, which is a great success, and Iraq.
Libya has changed.
India and Pakistan are in much better positions.
We've had non-proliferation successes, bringing down the AQ Con network.
We've been involved in HIV-AIDS and the search for a cure.
And certainly enormous amounts of money put into the problem in Africa and other places, so there is a huge positive agenda that has happened in the last four years.
I think it can only be even better in the next four.
We're counting on it.
The Secretary is sure of it, I'm sure of it, as we depart for civilian life.
MAXINE McKEW: The test will be for Iraq.
What would you say will need to have happened by 2008 when the President leaves office if Iraq is to be seen by the international community as something of a success as opposed to a mess?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: It's a bit messy right now, there's no question about it.
We're continuing to lose soldiers, and Iraqi policemen and National Guard figures are continuing to die as well, but the nation of Iraq is heading towards elections on January 30, a year after that they'll have a full-up government elected with a new constitution and I think we will be in a much better place.
But I don't think I'm in a position to set goals out to 2008.
I'm really a blue-collar worker and come to work each day, just trying to advance the ball a little bit down the field and I think that's the way you have to look at the situation in Iraq.
It's not going to happen in grand sweeps.
These are small successes, day in and day out.
MAXINE McKEW: How do you judge the situation post-Fallujah?
Has the attack on the city in any way broken the back of the insurgency or is there an argument to say that some of the key fighters have simply melted away and they will fight somewhere else?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, it's not just a possibility, it is a certainty that the key figures have disappeared and they will regroup.
I don't think they will want to fight us en masse as they did in Fallujah.
They lost huge numbers of fighters but moreover they lost their laboratories, they lost their prisons, bomb factories, lost enormous amounts of weapons.
The downside is that in Iraq there are enormous amounts of weapons and other places.
I wouldn't use the term "broken the back" of the insurgency but we hurt them.
We've hurt them in the short-term and now our job is to hurt them in the long-term while simultaneously bringing up infrastructure and the other positive elements of Iraqi society.
MAXINE McKEW: I would like to move onto the question of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The most recent news of course is that the jailed Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, will contest the Palestinian presidential elections.
What's the State Department's view of this?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: We think it's very problematic, after all, he is in jail.
There is an opportunity here for Palestinian people to pick someone who can lead them out of the wilderness and I would hope all Palestinians would see that as a real possibility and not try to divide and to throw some sand up.
A fellow who is in prison running for office seems to be very problematic.
MAXINE McKEW: What of Fatah's rival, Hamas?
At this stage they are sending out some signals that they may want to contest eventual parliamentary elections.
If that's the case, should Hamas be encouraged?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, Hamas has also said they will boycott these elections.
I don't know from day to day what they intend to do.
But I would hope as they approach the January 9 date that they see the opportunity for Palestinians is within their grasp to really make a positive difference in the Middle East.
I think Prime Minister Sharon, notwithstanding the difficulties he is having temporarily with his government, is willing to look for peace.
That was the burden of the message that Secretary Powell received from Prime Minister Sharon during his recent visit prior to the Sharm al-Sheik conference.
MAXINE McKEW: Still in the region, what about Iran?
How is the United States going to deal over the next couple of years with Iran's nuclear ambitions?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Very carefully.
MAXINE McKEW: But the US does see Iran as a sponsor of terrorism.
Is the US going to sit by and watch as the Iranians develop nuclear weapons?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: No, we, right now are supportive of the EU3 efforts which have brought about a temporary suspension in the Iranian nuclear problem.
Our scepticism, our cynicism about Iran is well known and thus far the Iranians have proved us to be valid and true in our scepticism.
We will watch and be close to the IAEA on the nuclear question.
On the question of terrorism, the Iranian support for Hezbollah remains undiminished and we remain undiminished in our opposition to that.
We don't wish forever to have a bad relationship with Iran, but from our point of view, they're involved in just too many activities right now that don't look too good when exposed to the naked eye.
MAXINE McKEW: Is there something of an unspoken wish that the Israelis will take care of this in the same way they bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: I think people speculate that are irresponsible, this is not, by the way - the Iranian situation doesn't lend itself to an Osirak solution as we saw in 1981.
Many of the facilities are underground or disguised and you could never be sure that if you took such a chance that you would get any, much less most, of the Iranian nuclear program.
The best way to resolve this is through diplomacy.
There has to be, in diplomacy, a bad or tough cop and right now that role is regulated to us.
MAXINE McKEW: As the US sees it, there is of course the other member of the axis of evil - North Korea.
At the moment we've got the multi party talks with China as a key player.
But how confident can we be of a benign outcome?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: Our problem with North Korea, beyond the abductions of Japanese citizens, is not with terrorism.
To my knowledge they haven't been involved with acts of terrorism since about 1987 and the bombing of the Korean airliner.
Our concern with them isn't proliferation, it is the development of both missiles and nuclear weapons.
We do think they have a couple, at least, of nuclear weapons and obviously we share, along with five others who are involved - four others, rather, partners in the six-party talks, the desire to have a denuclearised Peninsula of Korea.
President Bush has a lot of patience on this because he thinks that we're ideally diplomatically aligned with other friends in the region - Japan, China, Russia and South Korea - and we can bring about a solution which is one that's diplomatic.
MAXINE McKEW: You would be aware, though, that there is the odd conservative journal in Washington that is already talking up the need for regime change in Pyongyang.
RICHARD ARMITAGE: The odd conservative journal is welcome to talk about whatever it likes.
The only sitting administration in Washington is not talking about regime change.
MAXINE McKEW: You and Colin Powell are leaving office at a high point in terms of US/Australian relations.
We've seen the signing of the free trade agreement, joint military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is there an obvious next step in the relationship?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: I would like to think there is.
We have a lot of activity in Asia going on, a lot of it good, a lot of economic activity.
We want to be part of it.
Certainly Australia is very much part of it.
I think through continued consultations, through continued close interaction, we will make sure that together where appropriate, we can be part of the life of Asia for the benefit of all peoples in the region.
Beyond that, I'm extraordinarily happy and proud to be part of this US/Australia relationship.
It has been a part of my life since 1967 and it will be part of my life until the Lord takes me from this mortal coil.
MAXINE McKEW: In the long term, what about the possibility of an all-encompassing security community in the region, I mean, one that includes players as diverse as Indonesia, China, India perhaps?
Could you ever see them putting aside their historic rivalries and working towards a common diplomatic purpose?
RICHARD ARMITAGE: We all strive to - in the first instance, to get people to put aside their historic rivalries.
That's a pretty large order there and we're making some small steps of progress - especially with Pakistan and India.
Regarding security architecture in the region, it's something I think that one should consider very seriously, however, in that consideration one must also realise that unlike Europe and the NATO architecture, there are different religions, different ethnic groups and certainly different histories and a lot of neuralgia in the area, so it will be a much more difficult undertaking in Asia than it has been in Europe.
MAXINE McKEW: Richard Armitage, thanks for your time and good luck for the future.
RICHARD ARMITAGE: The pleasure is mine, Ms McKew.
Thank you.
U.S., Iran Join in Rare Gulf Security Conference
Fri Dec 3, 2004 04:27 PM ETMANAMA (Reuters) - A conference on regional security threats opened in Bahrain on Friday, in a rare gathering of senior officials and strategists from Gulf Arab states as well as Iran, Iraq and the United States.The Gulf Security Conference: The Gulf Dialogue, organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), will focus on terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Senior political, military and security officials from Europe, Australia, Japan, the United States and the Middle East are due to speak at the conference on Saturday and Sunday, which will be closed to the media.
Speakers include U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal and Iraq's National Security Adviser Kassim Daoud.
Iran threatens 'Top Secret' counter-attacks
Warns any state that acts against country's nuclear facilities
Posted: December 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: WorldNetDaily brings readers exclusive, up-to-the-minute global intelligence news and analysis from Geostrategy-Direct, a new online newsletter edited by veteran journalist Robert Morton and featuring the "Backgrounder" column compiled by Bill Gertz. Geostrategy-Direct is a subscription-based service produced by the publishers of WorldTribune.com, a free news service frequently linked by the editors of WorldNetDaily.
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.comA newly established Iranian group known as the Organization to Defense Iran's National Interests has threatened to take action against any state that attacks Iran's nuclear facilities.
The official IRNA news agency said the group, known by the acronym ODINI, issued a communiqué last week stating it would take action if economic sanctions were imposed on Iran for its failure to abide by international nuclear controls.
The group stated Iran's national defense should be increased and should include "maintaining national solidarity behind the leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei to safeguard Iran's national interests" and "launching aggressive-defensive attacks against enemy's most vital interests in case of being attacked."
The group also stated Iran should employ "assistance from the unseen world" as a defense tactic.
But it added it would not offer any details, noting that "although this tactic would cost the enemy severe unexpected losses beyond doubt, and bring about miraculous blessings for our nation, since it is classified as 'Top Secret' in our defense doctrine, we cannot offer any further details about it."
The group called for holy war based on Islam.
Iran's nuclear quest
Iran has been dancing a diplomatic tango over its nuclear negotiation — taking two steps forward for every step back. Diplomats and analysts believe the result is Iran gradually inches toward the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
In negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Union three — France, Britain and Germany — the Iranians sent mixed signals. First they seem to indicate they will abide by international requests to curb their nuclear program, only to later renege and then to return again to the negotiating table.
In accepting the proposals of the three European powers, the EU-3, to suspend enriching uranium — needed for producing nuclear weapons — Iran avoids bringing the issue to the U.N. Security Council's attention.
Recourse to the Security Council would raise the stakes, risking sanctions on Iran, or worse. Once all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, the council could pave the way for international recourse to a military solution — unlikely, but the threat exists, nevertheless.
For the moment, however, it seems diplomacy still has the upper hand and a crisis has been averted. "We have reached a final agreement with the three European powers," Hussein Moussavian, secretary of the foreign department of Iran's Supreme Council for National Security said on Iranian state-run television last Sunday night. The Iranian government has termed "appropriate" a draft IAEA resolution regarding its nuclear program. Government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh said the resolution does not satisfy all of Iran's demands but is acceptable under the circumstances.
But will Iran, which so far has played cat-and-mouse with the EU-3 and the IAEA to gain more time, respect the agreements?
David L. Mack, vice president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, and a former deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, does not think so. "I don't think the Iranians will respect any agreement the United States is not part of," Mr. Mack told United Press International. "They will run circles around us."
Mr. Mack, and other observers of Middle Eastern affairs, believe that so long as there is no joint European-U.S. approach on Iran's nuclear program, the Iranians will play one off against the other. "The uncoordinated good cop, bad cop routine is not working," Mr. Mack said. One reason is that, other than label Iran part of the "Axis of Evil," the Bush administration has not very actively addressed the Iran issue.
When Secretary of State Colin Powell sat next to Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi at the Sharm el-Sheik conference on Iraq last Nov. 22, instead of engaging his Iranian counterpart in useful dialogue, Mr. Powell reportedly limited himself to "polite dinner conversation." If true, that is both sad and a lost golden opportunity to initiate diplomacy. The United States and Iran have no formal relations and the Sharm el-Sheik dinner would have been a perfect opportunity for the two top diplomats to begin exchanging ideas.
"The Bush administration is on a collision course with Iran," Shibley Telhami, University of Maryland professor of political science and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told UPI. Mr. Telhami thinks the current U.S. approach on Iran will not work. The more Iran is pressured, the more the theocratic regime in Tehran is strengthened, he warns.
One country not involved in the negotiations but watching with anticipation and great interest from the sidelines is Israel. Observers say Israel also does not believe Iran will abide by any nuclear agreements. And many believe Israel will not allow that.
One way to better understand the problem's complexity, and Iran's reluctance to forgo pursuing nuclear weaponry, is to consider Iran's perspective, not that it will solve much.
Iran believes nuclear arms will improve its security and therefore probably will not halt its program. "I have no doubt in my mind Iran will continue to seek nuclear capability," said Mr. Telhami. Iran has taken stock of how easily the United States invaded neighboring Iraq. Iran feels it needs nuclear weapons for its own security. Tehran will pursue the weapons unless offered what Mr. Mack calls a "substantial quid pro quo." That means concrete reasons for Iranians to believe forgoing nuclear aspirations would leave them better off.
"There are smart people in Iran who think its better to be like Japan than like another North Korea," said Mr. Mack. Iran could be offered incentives to join the international fold rather than become a pariah state. As Mr. Mack noted, some observers maintain Iran was never accorded full diplomatic acceptance.But for Iran to see the West negotiating with a single voice, Mr. Mack, Mr. Telhami and others say the United States and Europe must join. Before the U.S. can mend fences with Iran, Mr. Mack says, it should start mending them with Europe.
Only then can the West take a unified stand against nuclear proliferation. A joint "tough diplomatic initiative by the United States, NATO, Europe and Japan," said Mr. Mack, can offer bigger carrots but also wave bigger sticks.
The alternative would be disastrous for the entire region. Iran, say numerous intelligence reports, has learned from Israel's 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak and spread its production plants around the country. This would make a successful Israeli raid extremely difficult — and costly.
Claude Salhani is international editor for United Press International.
U.S., Austrian officers foil plot to aid Iran military
THE WASHINGTON TIMESU.S. and Austrian law-enforcement authorities have disrupted a suspected plot to illegally supply the Iranian military with thousands of advanced military night-vision systems from the United States, arresting two Iranian nationals on charges of attempting to violate Austrian export laws.
Michael J. Garcia, Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary, announced yesterday that Mahmoud Seif and Shahrzad Mir Gholikhan were arrested Tuesday in Vienna, Austria, after a meeting during which they took possession of a U.S. helmet-mounted military night-vision system they intended to illegally export to Iran.
Mr. Garcia, who heads the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said the arrests followed a two-year investigation by ICE, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and the Austrian Federal Agency for State Protection and Counterterrorism, known as the Bundesamt Fuer Verfassungsschutz.
He said the Vienna transaction was the first in what was to be the purchase of 3,000 military night-vision systems from the United States for illegal export to Iran. The equipment ultimately was to be used by the Iranian military infantry.
ICE spokesman Dean Boyd said the new night-vision systems, known as Generation III, are among the most advanced in the world and are capable of amplifying virtually any light source, including faint starlight. Used by U.S. forces around the globe, Mr. Boyd said the systems provide a significant advantage to U.S. troops over opponents in nighttime combat.
Because of their sophistication, the systems are classified as U.S. Munitions List items and their export from the United States is prohibited without a valid export license from the State Department, he said. Additionally, Mr. Boyd said, all exports to Iran are prohibited under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The arrests are the latest in a series of ICE cases involving military equipment bound for Iran.
"Keeping sensitive U.S. weapons technology out of the hands of state sponsors of terror is a priority for ICE and the Department of Homeland Security," Mr. Garcia said. "Sophisticated night-vision systems allow U.S. troops to 'own the night,' giving them a key advantage over their opponents during nighttime combat.
"In the wrong hands, these night vision systems pose a threat to our troops around the world," he said.
Defense Department Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz said the "lives of American war fighters can be placed at direct risk through illegal transfer of military components" in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He said his agency's mission is to deploy DCIS investigative resources, as necessary, to prevent any company from circumventing U.S. controls on technology transfer.
Mr. Boyd said the government's investigation began in August 2002, when ICE and DCIS agents in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., received information that a person in Tehran was attempting to buy military-grade night-vision systems in the United States for illegal export to Iran. The original requests, he said, focused on the procurement of up to 3,000 helmet-mounted night-vision systems.
Mr. Boyd said the unnamed person specified that the systems were to be used by the Iranian military infantry.
In September, Mr. Seif and Mr. Gholikhan began negotiations to buy the night-vision systems from the United States, saying they would receive the first system and additional systems in Austria for export to Iran, Mr. Boyd said. The two men also noted their direct contacts with the Iranian government, he said.
Austrian authorities were contacted and later determined that such transactions would violate their nation's export-control laws. The Austrian Federal Agency for State Protection and Counterterrorism then joined the investigation.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Seif and Mr. Gholikhan arrived in Vienna, Austria, to pick up the first military night-vision system and were arrested by Austrian agents. At the time, he said, they gave undercover agents a list of other items they wanted to purchase from the United States.
This thread is now closed.
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
