Iranian Alert -- November 1, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

THE DAILY STAR ONLINE
NOVEMBER 1, 2003

The domestic angle of Iran’s nuclear deal

The announcement last week that Iran had reached an agreement over its nuclear programs with the British, French and German foreign ministers surprised the world. The three EU ministers brokered a deal with Iran under which the Islamic regime agreed to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment program and accepted a tougher regime of unannounced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For months there had been bitter disagreements amongst the Iranians over how to respond to the Oct. 31 deadline set by the IAEA by which time they must hand over details of their nuclear program. Hard-liners, including many senior clergy, urged the government that Iran ought not to give in to the ultimatum, and even that it should leave the Nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty (NPT).

One after another Iranian leaders, including reformist president Mohammad Khatami, insisted that Iran would not give in to what they saw as US blackmail under the cover of the IAEA demands. The general argument which was propagated by the hard-liners accused the Zionist lobbies (which they believe control US foreign policy) of being the main driving force behind the mobilization of the IAEA and the international community against Iran’s nuclear program. They insisted on Tehran’s right to pursue and to acquire nuclear technology and know-how. Under no circumstances, they felt, should Iran abandon its research into atomic power.

The reformists on the other hand avoided accusing the IAEA of being an agent of the US, and criticized the establishment for creating the crisis in the first place through the pursuit of naïve policies. However, attempting to find a middle course between the hard-liners and the IAEA, the reformists nevertheless insisted on Iran’s right to pursue a peaceful non-military nuclear program. In short, the indications seemed to be that Iran would not yield to the IAEA ultimatum according to which Tehran had until the end of October to sign an additional NPT protocol allowing more stringent inspection of its nuclear sites.

It was against this background that the Four-Parties agreement (between Iran, the UK, France and Germany) was announced. Not only had Iran declared that it would sign the protocol, it also pledged to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The EU ministers had undoubtedly pulled a considerable diplomatic achievement out of the bag. They had proved that dialogue, negotiation and patience were far more effective in the search for a deal with Tehran than stone-walling and threats of sanctions.
The latter approach has been followed by the US in its dealings with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, with few positive results. Even Washington did not try to hide its excitement of what the big three had achieved.
In Iran itself the news of the agreement was a bombshell. The reformists welcomed the decision whilst at the same time criticizing the conservatives for making it so late. They argued that if Iran had decided earlier it would have paid a lower price and perhaps even have been able to continue with uranium enrichment. Moreover, they criticized the Iranian government for by-passing the Majlis (Parliament) completely over the nuclear issue.
The conservatives and the more hard-line groups however were in a difficult situation. For weeks they had attacked the IAEA and accused those who supported the signing of the protocol of treason and giving in to the wishes of the enemies of Islam, the Zionists and the US. Now they were faced with an unexpected fait accompli by the regime. Iran’s rulers, anticipating the problem, moved quickly to prevent any backlash over the deal. The Cabinet spokesman, along with two senior clergy close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the agreement with the three European foreign ministers was taken under the close and direct supervision of the supreme leader. Any criticism of the agreement would therefore be tantamount to disagreeing with his judgement.

Other conservatives decided to defend the deal as a victory for Iran against its enemies, who they claimed had been foiled in an attempt to prepare UN sanctions against the Islamic regime on the grounds of non-compliance with the NPT.

These explanations, however, failed to convince the more radical Islamists.

On Friday, two days after signing the agreement, hundreds of students demonstrated against the agreement after Friday prayers in Tehran.

Mr. Hassan Rowhani, a senior clergyman close to the supreme leader and head of the powerful High National Security Council, the body that negotiated with the three European ministers, fought back, stating during a huge student rally on Sunday Oct. 26 that Iran had achieved 100 percent of all that it had wanted to achieve through the agreement. The speech was obviously an attempt by the conservatives to appease the hard-line critics of the agreement. Rowhani added that Iran’s co-operation with the IAEA and the policy of transparency and trust would only continue if the three European states in turn kept their promises.

Clearly, signing the agreement was a very difficult step for the conservatives. Nevertheless, after choosing this path they now seem committed to working with the IAEA. European assistance with the development of non-offensive atomic technology in Iran is now necessary to ensure that the regime can stay the course.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/01_11_03_e.asp

Blair has always kept Iran in mind, while preparing for war and fighting in Iraq. He and the US are on the same page, I believe.

UK Envoy to Iran Summoned Over Blair Remarks

November 01, 2003
Reuters
MSNBC News

TEHRAN -- Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the British ambassador in Tehran on Saturday to complain about remarks by Prime Minister Tony Blair, the British Embassy said.

Blair told BBC radio on Thursday that global commitment shown in the Iraq war to counter weapons of mass destruction had helped convince the Iranians to co-operate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog over their atomic programme.

''The ambassador was summoned this afternoon over Blair's comments,'' said a British diplomat in Tehran.

The official IRNA news agency said UK envoy Richard Dalton was told Blair's remarks were illogical.

''Mr Blair should not give bogus reasons and create propaganda...to escape answering world opinion on the legitimacy of occupying Iraq,'' an Iranian official was quoted as saying.

The British diplomat said Dalton had told the Iranians Blair never intended to insult the Islamic Republic and that Britain's policies towards Iran had not changed.

Iran agreed last week after a visit by EU foreign ministers to sign up to snap checks of its nuclear sites and suspend uranium enrichment. The step by Tehran eased pressure on Iran to prove to the United Nations that it is not seeking to develop nuclear arms.

''Our policy remains to engage with Iran and we welcome the results of last week's visit by the foreign secretary (Jack Straw) and his French and German counterparts, and we look forward to them being implemented,'' a spokesman for Blair's Downing Street office told Reuters.

Iran has always said its nuclear scientists are working on ways to meet booming demand for electricity not building a nuclear bomb.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Lovell in London)

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters11-01-105557.asp?reg=EUROPE

We never become happy over a smile of the enemy, nor will we be frightened by its anger," he said to the chants of "Death to America," and "Death to Israel".

In other words, Iran remains duplicitous, deceitful and dangerous.

The grave danger is that Iran may be, in the words of an editorial in Londons Financial Times, just throwing sand in the IAEAs eyes to blind the world to its bomb-making ambitions.

Well, duh.

The agreement is worth precisely camel crap. Less, as it has little nutritional, agricultural or caloric value.

The U.S. administration said Wednesday the United States is open to talks with Iran on a limited basis, but insisted that any improvement in relations would require Tehran to hand over terror suspects.

Iran is a terrorist-supporting nation.

Robert Baer, See No Evil, says Iran was behind the Beirut Embassy bombing in 1983 that killed over sixty.

What is the UN doing in the middle of a transfer of terrorists?

The UN opposed our action against terrorist-supporting Iraq--the UN consistently protects terrorists--

--and puts the likes of Libya and Syria on its "human rights commissions".

NO deal with the Mullahs is Iranians' demand.... YEAH!

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”