Iranian Alert -- November 26, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD

The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” But most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. Starting June 10th of this year, Iranians have begun taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy. Many even want the US to over throw their government.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

Khamenei says U.S. Sinking in Iraq's Swamp

November 26, 2003
Reuters
MSNBC News

TEHRAN -- Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday the United States was sinking deeper into a quagmire in Iraq and warned that Middle Eastern nations would not tolerate being occupied.

''The American nation should know that Iraq is America's quagmire and America is sinking deeper into it by staying longer in Iraq,'' Khamenei said in a sermon broadcast live on state media to mark the official end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan in Iran.

''The Americans are so desperate that they are bombing an occupied country...this (Middle East) region does not tolerate occupation,'' the conservative cleric told tens of thousands of worshippers who gathered at a large mosque in Tehran.

Iran has repeatedly called for the acceleration of a power transfer in Iraq and the formation of an independent Iraqi government.

Last week, Iran's moderate President Mohammad Khatami officially recognised the Iraqi Governing Council, a mainly advisory group of 25 people selected by the United States.

''The Americans should know that any imposed government, constitution and elections would face resistance from the people in Iraq,'' said Khamenei, who wields ultimate authority in Iran.

''In free elections the majority of the Iraqi people will choose those who will not allow the Americans to stay one more day in Iraq,'' he said.

Khamenei said instead of providing democracy for Iraq, Washington was oppressing the Iraqi people.

''The Americans, who entered Iraq in the name of human rights, have oppressed the Iraqis so much that they punched the Americans in the face,'' Khamenei said.

''The Americans' claim about bringing democracy to the region is a disgraceful lie,'' he added.

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters11-26-013627.asp?reg=MIDEAST

Text of the Resolution on Iran

November 26, 2003
The Associated Press
The Anchorage Daily News

The text of U.N. nuclear agency's resolution on Iran that was adopted Wednesday:

"The Board of Governors ...

- Expressed concern over failures by the Islamic Republic of Iran to report material, facilities and activities that Iran is obliged to report pursuant to its Safeguards Agreement;

- Decided it was essential and urgent, in order to ensure IAEA verification of non-diversion of nuclear material, that Iran remedy all failures identified by the Agency and cooperate fully with the Agency by taking all necessary actions by the end of October 2003;

- Requested Iran to work with the Secretariat to promptly and unconditionally sign, ratify and fully implement the Additional Protocol, and, as a confidence-building measure, to act thenceforth in accordance with the Additional Protocol; and

- Called on Iran to suspend all further uranium enrichment-related activities, including the further introduction of nuclear material into Natanz, and any reprocessing activities ..."

---

"Noting with deep concern that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored...

- Noting in particular with the gravest concern that Iran enriched uranium and separated plutonium in undeclared facilities, in the absence of IAEA safeguards,

- Noting also, with equal concern, that there has been in the past a pattern of concealment resulting in breaches of safeguard obligations and that the new information disclosed by Iran and reported by the Director General includes much more that is contradictory to information previously provided by Iran,

- Noting that ... Iran has begun cooperating more actively with the IAEA and has given assurances that it is committed to a policy of full disclosure, ...

- Emphasizing that, in order to restore confidence, Iranian cooperation and transparency will need to be complete and sustained so that the Agency can resolve outstanding issues and, over time, provide and maintain the assurances required by the Member States,

- Noting with satisfaction that Iran has indicated that it is prepared to sign the Additional Protocol, and that, pending its entry into force, Iran will act in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol, ...

- Stressing that the voluntary suspension by Iran of all its uranium enrichment-related activities and reprocessing activities remains of key importance to rebuilding international confidence, ...

- Strongly deplores Iran's past failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with the provisions of its Safeguards Agreement, as reported by the Director General; and urges Iran to adhere strictly to its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement in both letter and spirit;

- Endorses ... that the Agency must have a particularly robust verification system in place: an Additional Protocol, coupled with a policy of full transparency and openness on the part of Iran, is indispensable;

- Reiterates that the urgent, full and close cooperation with the Agency of all third countries is essential in the clarification of outstanding questions concerning Iran's nuclear program;

- Calls on Iran to undertake and complete the taking of all necessary corrective measures on an urgent basis, to sustain full cooperation with the Agency in implementing Iran's commitment to full disclosure and unrestricted access, and thus to provide the transparency and openness that are indispensable for the Agency to complete the considerable work necessary to provide and maintain the assurances required by the Member States;

- Decides that, should any further serious Iranian failures come to light, the Board of Governors would meet immediately to consider, in the light of the circumstances and advice from the Director General, all options at its disposal, in accordance with the IAEA Statue and Iran's Safeguards Agreement;

- Notes with satisfaction the decision of Iran to conclude an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement, and re-emphasizes the importance of Iran moving swiftly to ratification and also of Iran acting as if the Protocol were in force in the interim, including by making all declarations required within the required timeframe;

- Welcomes Iran's decision to voluntarily suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and requests Iran to adhere to it, in a complete and verifiable manner; and also endorses the Director General's acceptance of Iran's invitation to verify implementation of that decision and report thereon."

http://www.adn.com/24hour/world/story/1067286p-7481524c.html

"Damascus Carefully Observes U.S. Involvement in Iraq"

November 26, 2003
The Power and Interest News
Brian Maher

Syria has a critical role to play in the success of the American effort in Iraq and in America's larger Middle East strategy. The infiltration of foreign militants into Iraq from Syria, which has contributed to the area's instability and has hamstrung U.S. efforts to build a viable post-war Iraq, has been an ongoing concern for Washington. Nearly half of those detained in Iraq by U.S. forces since the end of major combat operations have entered through Syria, according to U.S. officials.

Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Syrian diplomacy seemed to work at cross-purposes. On the one hand, Damascus recognized that it could not afford to become a U.S. enemy, while on the other hand it understood that Washington's plans for the region were incompatible with its own. Damascus professed public support for the U.S. "war on terrorism" and offered tangible support by providing valuable intelligence on al-Qaeda, as well as other militant groups in the region. Nevertheless, Damascus attempted to sabotage U.S. invasion plans, successfully lobbying to deprive Washington of Arab support in the United Nations and helping to sow division among the Western powers, fearing the political fallout from an American victory.

These efforts ultimately failed to prevent the U.S. invasion, and Damascus was put on the defensive by the rapid U.S. victory in Iraq. A nervous President Assad, fearing that Syria may be the next U.S. target, began to eagerly bend to U.S. concerns, pledging to cooperate with the Americans and cracked down on Islamist activity in his country. Under heavy U.S. pressure, Damascus closed its border in April and apparently expelled a number of ranking Ba'athist officials, including Iraq's chief nuclear scientist.

Following the intensification of the guerrilla campaign against the U.S. occupation over the summer months, Syria began to consider its policies anew, sensing U.S. weakness. The almost daily attacks were becoming a needling distraction to the American effort and Damascus realized that a successful, expanding insurgency would place the U.S. in a political straitjacket, hemming it in, precluding it from focusing its energies on Syria. The border area became increasingly porous and scores of militants were allowed free passage to ply their trade in Iraq.

Syrian denials of complicity in this activity ring especially hollow -- there is only one highway running between the two countries and the Syrian border is teeming with army forces tracking smugglers attempting to peddle their wares without paying off corrupt officials. If Damascus truly sought to seal the border area, there would surely be reports of dead militants, eagerly presented to Washington as proof of Syria's fidelity.

Not surprisingly, Washington has brought considerable pressure to bear on Damascus to seal its borders with Iraq and crack down on Islamic militants. The U.S. is forging a regional coalition to isolate Syria, and recently Damascus has been forcefully reminded that it cannot afford to antagonize Washington indefinitely. With implicit U.S. support, Israeli warplanes struck a suspected terrorist camp near Damascus, the first Israeli raid on Syria in 30 years. Damascus realizes that such an attack could only be carried out with U.S. countenance and no doubt considers it a less than subtle expression of Washington's dissatisfaction with Syrian efforts.

In addition, Turkey has joined the American camp by offering up troops to assist the U.S. occupation. Of course, approximately 130,000 American troops lie beyond the Syrian frontier, powerfully reminding Damascus of American reach. Washington hopes that surrounding Syria in such a fashion will force Damascus to reconsider its strategies and yield to American concerns.

These developments are significant because Syria figures into a broader American strategy to apply pressure to the rest of the Middle East, and Iran in particular. Iran represents a more substantial threat than Syria, especially with its potential nuclear capability, and Washington hopes to treat Syria in a way that resonates with Tehran. Should Iran obstruct U.S. efforts in Iraq to an appreciable degree, Washington hopes to make an example out of a militarily weaker and politically vulnerable Syria, highlighting to Tehran the high cost of interference.

This would ostensibly bring Iran and other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, into line, fearing that they could be next on Washington's list. However, the Bush administration is concerned that the perception of American impotence in the face of an increasingly capable insurgency will embolden the opponents of the U.S. presence in Iraq. The insurgency has frittered away the psychological impact that the fall of Baghdad produced on Middle Eastern regimes, which may be a dire portent for America's future in Iraq if visible progress is not made.

Damascus may gamble that the U.S. lacks the political capital and resources to challenge Syria directly, in which case it could greatly increase the cost of the U.S. occupation. Of particular concern from Washington's perspective is the ability of Hezbollah to initiate a potentially devastating insurgency against occupation forces. Damascus uses Hezbollah to advance its foreign policy objectives and exerts substantial control over the organization. Syria unleashes Hezbollah when it suits its purposes, as it did in the Shebaa Farms territory, or reins it in when it senses danger. Damascus would undertake a mighty risk by allowing Hezbollah to incite resurrection in Iraq. Hezbollah's passivity thus far is an indication that Damascus is highly appreciative of the risk.

Both Washington and Damascus recognize that matters have not reached the level of open confrontation, leaving ample leeway for diplomacy. In the end, Damascus is aware of Washington's ability to inflict injury and desperately seeks to avoid direct confrontation with the U.S. Most likely, it will try to reach some sort of accommodation with Washington. Recent reports out of Iraq suggesting that the flow of foreign militants transiting through Syria has slowed may be a sign that Damascus is feeling the pressure.

Washington, in turn, is not in a position to seek conflict with Syria at this time and will continue to pressure Syria indirectly. Any actions against Syria will be limited to the diplomatic and economic spheres -- for now at least. The carrot will be an integral part of Washington's strategy in addition to the stick, despite the passage of the Syrian Accountability Act, which some fear will remove a critical bargaining tool.

The Bush administration realizes that Damascus wants to avoid direct confrontation but will target Syria rhetorically when it wants to send a message to the rest of the region. Because of this, there may be little that Damascus can do in the face of such posturing, short of complete capitulation to Washington's long list of demands that targets Syria's larger role in regional affairs and weapons proliferation. This is not especially likely since many of these demands clash directly with powerful Syrian perceptions of self-interest. But it will do enough to avoid direct confrontation in the short run at least, which is certainly in Damascus' best interest.

http://pinr.com/index.php

An Administration of One

November 21, 2003
Weekly Standard,
Robert Kagan and William Kristol

Bush has made it clear that the only exit strategy from Iraq is a victory strategy, with victory defined as "democracy."

WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH first entered the White House, the conventional wisdom was that his inexperience and lack of vision in foreign policy would be compensated for by his wise and experienced cabinet. This may or may not have been a reasonable view at the time. Right now, however, it is clear that the most visionary and, yes, the wisest and most capable foreign policy-maker in the Bush administration is the president himself. Let's hope the team around him proves willing and capable of fulfilling his clear and historic grand strategy.

This past week has been an extraordinary one for the president. His visit to Great Britain, portrayed by the press beforehand as an impending disaster, was instead a resounding success. The spectacle of anti-Bush and anti-American protesters had a predictable effect on a sensible British public. Polls in Britain show rising support for the war in Iraq and a growing appreciation for the role played by the United States in the world. Bush's speech in London won well-deserved praise even from European critics--more so, actually, than from many of his American critics, who have long since abandoned the pretense of objectivity.

Bush struck exactly the right balance in reaching his hand across the Atlantic and seeking cooperation in the war on terrorism, but without pulling back from his own determination to wage that war forcefully. He began to dispel the label of unilateralism that has been unfairly pinned on him, while still asking Europeans to wake up to the realities of a dangerous world they have been trying so hard to ignore. Bush might be well advised to give more such speeches in Europe. (We have stopped expecting his secretary of state actually to go to European capitals to make the case for the president's policies.)

In his London speech, the president continued to advance what has come to be the centerpiece of his global grand strategy--the promotion of liberal democracy abroad, and especially in the Middle East, where freedom has been most wanting and where the West's record has been most dismal. This was the third speech in less than nine months in which the president made the promotion of democracy his central theme (the first being his speech at the American Enterprise Institute back in February before the Iraq war began, the second his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy earlier this fall). There can no longer be any doubt that whatever Republican "realist" inclinations the president may have inherited from his father and his father's advisers when he took office, he has now abandoned that failed and narrow view and raised the torch previously held high by Ronald Reagan--and before that by John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman.

In this respect, Bush has broken from the mainstream of his party and become a neoconservative in the true meaning of the term. For if there is a single principle that today divides neoconservatism from traditional American conservatism, it is the conviction that the promotion of liberal democracy abroad is both a moral imperative and a profound national interest. This is a view of America's role in the world that has found little favor in the Republican party since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. Reagan was a modern exception--the product, no doubt, of his own roots as a Truman Democrat--but this aspect of Reaganism was largely abandoned by Republicans after 1989. And so we are not surprised to see traditional Republican conservatives, of whom there is no more esteemed intellectual spokesman than George Will, now denouncing the supposed folly of such ambitious ventures. Nor are we surprised that in Bush's own cabinet, neither his secretary of state nor his secretary of defense shares the president's commitment to liberal democracy, either in Iraq or in the Middle East more generally. Indeed, the only thing that surprises us, a little, is the failure of American liberals--and European liberals--to embrace a cause that ought to be close to their hearts.

Liberals and conservatives alike these days seem willing to consign the Arab peoples to more decades of tyranny. "The West," argues Fareed Zakaria, "must recognize that it does not seek democracy in the Middle East--at least not yet." President Bush rejects this counsel. "In the West," Bush noted in London, "there's been a certain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-government. . . . It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty. It is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it."

What has also become clear this past week is that Bush is determined to promote democracy in Iraq--and right now. This is a significant step forward. Up until recently, senior Bush officials have tended to avoid using the word "democracy" to describe the goals of American policy. In the Pentagon and elsewhere it has been thought that this sets the bar too high and implies a lengthy American commitment to Iraq, a commitment of money, energy, and troops. The most urgent task, as Donald Rumsfeld and General John Abizaid have been inclined to see it, has been to bring the levels of U.S. forces in Iraq down and turn over the task of security to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. Others in the administration have adopted the familiar argument that the Iraqi people are not yet ready for democracy and have tried to push any real elections as far into the future as possible.

President Bush this week slammed the door on this kind of thinking. First, he set the bar for success high: democracy. The new plan for a handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis calls for regional caucuses to elect a transitional legislature by next May, with general elections planned for the end of 2005. We would prefer to see the elections moved up, but even under the current schedule Iraqis will have a chance to begin participating in democratic politics almost immediately. That is a giant step toward the goal and the commitment that Bush articulated this past week: The United States "will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun."

So much for exit strategies. Bush has made it clear that the only exit strategy from Iraq is a victory strategy, with victory defined as "democracy." "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins. We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East." That commitment may turn out to be the most important of Bush's presidency, perhaps the most important of the post-Cold War era.

The second significant point Bush made in London was about troop levels in Iraq. In response to a question about beginning to bring home troops from Iraq next year, the president could not have been clearer. The United States will provide the troops necessary in Iraq. "We could have less troops in Iraq, we could have the same number of troops in Iraq, we could have more troops in Iraq, whatever is necessary to secure Iraq." Unfortunately, Bush's senior advisers treated his remark as if it were a gaffe and immediately began backgrounding reporters that there was no chance of a troop increase next year. That was an appalling error, signifying just how little the president's own advisers understand what's at stake in Iraq.

The president, we are happy to say, does understand. "The failure of democracy in Iraq," he said this week, "would throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us." Failure in Iraq is unacceptable. Al Qaeda and international terrorists "view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat to their ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe their acts of terror against our coalition, against international aid workers and against innocent Iraqis will make us recoil and retreat. In this, they are mistaken." Progress toward democracy is imperative. If that means more American troops are needed, then the administration should not--and we are now confident will not--flinch from putting in more troops, even in an election year.

The president made great progress this week explaining his vision and strategy to the world. He has placed himself at the level of Reagan and Truman, both of whom were also treated with derision by their opponents. Bush's great task now will be to explain his strategy to his own cabinet and commanders and insist that they begin implementing it.

12/01/2003, Volume 009, Issue 12

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/403xbvty.asp

Israel: Iran is Now Danger No. 1

November 28, 2003
The Christian Science Monitor
Nicole Gaouette

JERUSALEM – Even as the US and European nations press Iran harder to comply with international law on its nuclear program, Israel is moving ahead with its own program to check its powerful Middle Eastern neighbor.

Israel is working on a wide range of measures to undermine Iran's nuclear program, with senior leaders hinting that Israel may take preemptive action if that is deemed necessary. Analysts here suggest that action may include a strike similar to Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor.

The Israeli initiative includes political, military, and intelligence wings of government and dovetails with US efforts to contain Iran within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The effort reflects the widespread assessment here that Iran poses a greater threat than Iraq has for the past decade and is gaining nuclear expertise more quickly than the US estimates.

"Iran has a clandestine [nuclear] program that is very ambitious," says Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzilya. "That country thinks big and fast and ... poses a threat that is very real. Should it acquire nuclear weapons or even come close, it would completely alter the Middle East. It's a very ominous threat."

Analysts here argue that the prospect of a nuclear Iran would:

• Threaten Israeli, US, and European security.

• Harden Arab positions in any future peace negotiations.

• Increase militancy and embolden hard-liners.

• Destabilize the Gulf area.

• And encourage other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, to follow suit.

History of Iranian concealment

The US, Britain, France, and Germany say that Iran has been concealing nuclear research for the past 18 years in pursuit of nuclear weapons, despite signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970.

On Monday, the four nations agreed on a strongly worded IAEA resolution promoted by the US that threatens the possibility of UN sanctions should Iran continue to violate its agreements.

The US charges that Iran is also developing chemical and biological weapons, though the country is party to conventions curbing them. Furthermore, both the US and Israel say that Iran is trying to extend the range of its missiles, which could be used to develop such weapons.

Already, the 810-mile reach of Iran's Shahab-3 missile puts Israel and US forces in the region in striking range. The US charges that Iran will probably try to develop missiles capable of hitting Western Europe or the US itself.

Iran has admitted to concealing aspects of its atomic energy program, but says it is pursuing alternate energy sources, a claim the State Department dismissed as "simply not credible."

In testimony to the US-Israeli Joint Parliamentary Committee in September, State Department official Paula DeSutter said, "The impact of a nuclear-armed Iran in an already volatile region cannot be underestimated. As President Bush had made clear, that cannot be allowed to happen."

Israeli officials have echoed that declaration. In November, Israeli media reported that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, on a trip to Washington, told US officials that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to abide by nuclear weapons in Iranian possession."

'Existential threat' to Israel?

Meir Dagan, director of Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, told a parliamentary committee this month that Iran posed an "existential threat" to Israel, according to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. He reportedly assured committee members that Israel could deal with this threat.

Like the US, Israel estimates that Iran is three to four years away from building a nuclear bomb. But Israel believes that in 2004, Iran will reach the point at which their nuclear program cannot be stopped.

On the same US trip, Mr. Mofaz told a pro-Israeli lobby group that a nuclear Iran was "intolerable."

"The implicit message of his statements was that if the Iranian nuclear program is not stopped in the next number of months, Israel will have to take action of its own - perhaps even to attack - to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into Iranian hands," analyst Amir Rappaport wrote in the Ma'ariv newspaper.

It would not be the first time Israel has taken preemptive action against a perceived threat. In 1981, Israeli fighter jets launched a successful surprise attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor, destroying it.

A push against Iran on all fronts

In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has upgraded Israel's efforts against Iran's nuclear program by putting all related committees under Mr. Dagan's command. Mr. Sharon himself will head a ministerial committee.

In this multipronged effort, Israel's foreign ministry will launch a diplomatic campaign to persuade other countries to work against Iran's nuclear program. The Mossad will work with foreign intelligence agencies, the National Security Council will work with the US-Israeli Joint Committee, and Israel's atomic energy body will focus on technical aspects of Iran's program and work with the IAEA.

Israel's concern about Iran stems from the country's proximity, its longstanding hostility to Israel, and its support for groups like Lebanese Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

While these groups launch attacks on Israel and its citizens with Iranian support, some analysts here say there remains the potential for direct confrontation between the nations of Iran and Israel.

Zeev Maghen, a senior research associate at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv who studies Iran, disagrees, but he acknowledges, "The amount of hostility that has built up in the world in general, and the Islamic world in particular, against my country might push someone over the edge."

"We're the pariah country," Mr. Maghen adds.

A nuclear Iran would also erode Israel's strategic edge. Israel's military, the world's 14th largest by budget, according to the Center for Defense Information, is vastly superior to any of its Middle East counterparts. Israel is also widely understood to have an arsenal of nuclear and other weapons, though officials deny this. It is not a signatory to the NPT.

"Israel has kept an ambiguous posture about this," says Mr. Arad, "but clearly, should Iran become nuclear, it would clearly be an adverse development. The country supports terrorism, has taken a militant line against the peace process, is hostile to the US, and is active in anti-American attacks [in Iraq]. It clearly poses a very serious threat to everybody."

From the November 28, 2003 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html

One Last Chance

November 26, 2003
The Economist.com
The Economist

European governments have persuaded America not to have Iran dragged before the UN Security Council over its suspicious nuclear experiments. But Iran has been told it had better keep its promise to mend its ways.

AFTER struggling for several weeks to reach a compromise on how to deal with the illicit nuclear experiments that Iran has been concealing for the past 18 years, the 35 countries on the board of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have finally reached agreement. On Wednesday November 26th they passed a resolution, which stops short of reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council, as America had wanted. But the resolution’s wording was tougher than that of earlier drafts—proposed jointly by Britain, France and Germany—which both America and the IAEA’s head, Mohamed ElBaradei, thought too lenient.

The IAEA monitors Iran's nuclear programme. IRNA, Iran's official news agency, presents the official line on news events. See also the Iranian presidency and the Foreign Ministry. The European Union outlines foreign relations with Iran. The US State Department issues statements on Iran's nuclear programme and gives information on non-proliferation. The Federation of American Scientists posts background information on the NPT. Australia's Uranium Information Centre gives details of the various types of nuclear reactor and how they work.

The resolution “strongly deplores” Iran’s breaches of its Safeguards Agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It welcomes Iran’s recent confession of its past transgressions and its promise to allow UN inspectors to make more intrusive checks on the country’s nuclear facilities. But it says that if any further violations are uncovered, the IAEA board would immediately meet to consider “all options at its disposal”—meaning bringing Iran before the Security Council, which may impose economic sanctions.

Iran has repeatedly denied America’s accusation that it is using its civil nuclear-power programme as a cover for bomb-making. But it has been forced to change its story several times, thanks to leaks from Iranian opposition groups and findings by IAEA inspectors. It has now owned up to having secret nuclear facilities. Some of the experiments Iran has carried out—such as producing small amounts of plutonium and metallic uranium—are useful steps towards making a nuclear bomb but not much use for the sort of civil energy programme that Iran is developing. The nuclear-power station that Russia is building for Iran at Bushehr on the Gulf coast is perfectly legal but questionable: why would a country with some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves bother with the expense of nuclear power unless it had other motives?

In July, Mr ElBaradei went to Tehran, with the backing of many of the world’s main powers, to press the country’s government to sign an “additional protocol” to the NPT. This would give the IAEA’s inspectors the right to visit both declared and suspected nuclear facilities at short notice. The agency then gave Iran until the end of October to come clean about all its nuclear dabblings. Shortly before this deadline, Iran sent the IAEA what it said were full details of its activities. The country promised that it would sign up for the tougher inspections regime and suspend its enrichment of uranium (a technique useful for making either bombs or fuel for power plants), though not necessarily permanently.

The IAEA’s board convened last week to discuss a report from Mr ElBaradei which criticised Iran’s treaty infringements but said—to America’s annoyance—that no clear evidence of bomb-building had been found. The board’s deliberations were extended into this week after its members were unable to close the gap between America’s demands for an immediate referral to the Security Council (backed by Israel, a likely target for any Iranian nuclear bomb) and European countries’ desire to encourage Iran to co-operate.

Though Iran is playing down the significance of its nuclear experiments, arguing that they only produced tiny quantities of fissile materials, they show that the country has mastered some of the most important stages in nuclear bomb-making. Thus if it ever pulled out of the NPT, Iran could quickly have such weapons ready. In July, it brought into service a new missile capable, in theory, of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as Israel, or indeed reaching American bases in the Middle East.

Western diplomats said the resolution means Iran will be faced with a stark choice—total transparency or the risk of painful sanctions. But America is still worried, as its secretary of state, Colin Powell, has put it, that the world powers will declare premature victory; indeed, Russia has already stopped threatening to halt the construction of the Bushehr power station and is talking of building a second one. There are, in fact, several more vital steps before the world can be sure that Iran really has given up its nuclear option, as opposed to just pursuing it more cannily: its parliament must ratify the tough new inspections regime; and Iran must then allow the inspectors free rein to do their jobs, without obstruction or obfuscation.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2242273

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.