Iranian Alert - October 23, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

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

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

Iran Moving Methodically Toward Nuclear Capability

[Excerpt]

Suspicions grow even as hard evidence remains elusive. A showdown may be approaching.
October 21, 2004

By Douglas Frantz, Times Staff Writer

VIENNA — Iran has made steady progress toward producing nuclear fuel and could make significant quantities of enriched uranium in less than a year, according to new estimates by diplomats, scientists and intelligence officials.

Mastering enrichment will move Tehran a big step closer to being able to build an atomic bomb. Iran's progress already has intensified its confrontation with the United States and other countries that fear it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Despite persistent suspicions, however, a report due next month by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency is not expected to provide proof that Tehran has a weapons program, diplomats said.

Nearly two years of inspections have uncovered a pattern of concealment and deception by Iran over two decades. But when it comes to whether Iran is secretly pursuing an atomic bomb, the case remains circumstantial.

Iran insists that its goal is to generate electricity. Its leaders have so far rejected demands by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.S. and European countries that they freeze enrichment activities.

A showdown appears to be approaching. The U.S. and its allies, arguing that the threat is imminent, want the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which limits the spread of nuclear technology to peaceful purposes.

But since the United States failed to prove its claims about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, other countries want more time for a fuller evaluation of Iran's enrichment capabilities and intentions.

At the center of the dispute is the enrichment process itself, which converts uranium ore into fissionable material, the most elusive component of a nuclear weapon. The same basic process produces low-level enriched uranium for civilian reactors or, with technical adjustments, highly enriched uranium for bombs.

This month, Iran said it was gearing up to produce large amounts of gaseous uranium, which is used in enrichment. The gas, known as uranium hexafluoride, can be fed into slender centrifuges, which spin at high speed to transform the gas into enriched uranium.

Iran has moved much faster than expected in manufacturing and assembling these centrifuges, diplomats said. The rapid progress means a pilot centrifuge plant near Natanz, in central Iran, could soon be equipped with enough machines to begin large-scale enrichment.

Two senior European diplomats said the pilot plant could be expanded from the existing 164 centrifuges to 1,000 within weeks and produce enough material in less than a year to fashion a crude nuclear device.

"They need to install more centrifuges and do preparatory work, and they could be in production in shorter than a year," said one diplomat, who, like most of the people interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition that his name and position be withheld.

For now, the International Atomic Energy Agency is monitoring the gas-production plant at Esfahan, also in central Iran, and preparations at the pilot plant. The pilot operation is part of a complex where an underground enrichment facility for as many as 50,000 centrifuges is under construction.

Western intelligence officials said the big fear is that once the two plants are operating, Iran will shift enrichment operations to hidden installations or follow North Korea's example and kick out the IAEA, allowing Tehran to begin enriching uranium to weapons grade at Natanz.

Uranium enrichment is relatively portable. Experts say 1,000 centrifuges could operate in a small building with little chance of detection by even the most sophisticated sensors or satellites.

There is no evidence that a hidden plant exists, and only hints about weapons research. But even officials who give Iran the benefit of the doubt say Tehran has been caught in so many lies that verifying the absence of a weapons program would take months, if not years, and might be impossible.

"When people have looked you literally in the eye across the table and told you this is black and it turns out to be white, your confidence in them is damaged," said a third senior European diplomat.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director-general, has praised Iran's cooperation often enough to evoke U.S. anger, but he also has acknowledged that Iran's actions have created a "deficit of confidence." As before the Iraq war, ElBaradei wants more time to complete inspections before sending the matter to the Security Council.

But the U.S. and allies such as Canada and Australia say time has run out. They argue that the threshold for action is not the discovery of a secret plant or a weapons design. Instead, they say, Iran must be stopped before it begins to enrich uranium.

President Bush says a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable, and Israel's defense minister warned last month that his country would consider "all options" to stop Tehran.

Military strikes against nuclear installations in Iran would be difficult; they could provoke retaliation and would certainly result in international condemnation. But Israeli officials argue that the backlash would be less painful than allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

Six months after an exile group's August 2002 disclosure that Iran was building an enrichment plant at Natanz and a second nuclear installation, the IAEA began trying to decipher the full scope of Iran's atomic activities.

Inspectors have examined research centers and workshops across the country, interviewed hundreds of scientists and pored over thousands of pages of documents dating to the mid-1980s, when Iran began secretly buying nuclear technology.

At every step, Iran concealed crucial aspects of its program. Iranian authorities twice denied inspectors access to suspect locations while incriminating material and equipment was hauled away. Each time, the inspectors said they still found evidence of nuclear experiments.

"The world at large knew nothing about Iran's nuclear plans two years ago and everything since then has been pried out of them," a U.S. diplomat said.

Under pressure from Washington, the IAEA board last month told the agency's staff to conduct another round of inspections and prepare a comprehensive summary of findings.

The board also ordered Iran to stop its enrichment program. Tehran voluntarily curtailed enrichment in a deal made a year ago with Britain, France and Germany, but it resumed the work this year.

The IAEA summary report will be circulated two weeks before representatives of the 35 member nations on the board meet Nov. 25 in Vienna. The expected conclusion that there is no proof of a weapons program and no new evidence of concealment is unlikely to stop the United States from demanding a vote to refer the issue to the Security Council.

Iran escaped previous U.S. pushes for tough action. That's unlikely this time, diplomats say, unless Iran again halts enrichment — and even that is no guarantee it can avoid referral.

Diplomats familiar with the U.S. strategy said U.N. sanctions would be the first step in an effort to force Tehran to abandon enrichment efforts. Harsher steps eventually could include military action.

But other diplomats said Russia, China and other governments were reluctant to endorse sanctions, worrying that they might be the first step leading to an attack on Iran.

Tehran's best chance of avoiding being hauled before the Security Council appears to be accepting a new European offer of a package of incentives that would include guaranteeing Iran access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel for a nearly complete reactor in exchange for the country mothballing its enrichment efforts.

Tehran has not responded formally to the proposal, which is to be presented to its representatives today in Vienna. Western diplomats expect some concession before the Nov. 25 meeting.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said in an interview last month that Tehran was willing to consider "any kind of verification mechanism … to make sure there is no secret program." He said the goal of any agreement with the Europeans would be to prevent the issue from going to the Security Council.

Iran's conservatives, who have solidified control of the government since the first agreement with the Europeans, appear divided over whether to strike another bargain.

Defiant hard-liners want to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and go ahead with enrichment. Proposed legislation would require Iran to pull out of the accord and halt IAEA inspections.

"Countries are seriously concerned about Iran withdrawing from the treaty," a Western diplomat said. "That's the second-worst scenario — getting the bomb being the worst."

IAEA chief ElBaradei warned that Iran's withdrawal could prompt other countries to follow, severely damaging the primary means of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons.

More moderate voices in Iran argue that the country should remain in the treaty and try to avoid sanctions by accepting the European deal.

An Iranian official in Vienna said Tehran was unlikely to sign off on any agreement until after the U.S. presidential election, to avoid boosting Bush's campaign.

Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic challenger, has suggested that the U.S. should back a deal to provide Iran with nuclear fuel, something the Bush administration has so far refused to support.

Diplomats speculated that if Kerry won, the IAEA board might delay action against Iran until his administration took office.

Despite the absence of clear evidence, U.S. accusations against Iran have gained wide acceptance in recent months.

The main reason is that the suspicions do not rest as heavily on U.S. intelligence as they did in the case of Iraq's alleged nuclear program. International concerns about Iran are rooted in information uncovered by IAEA inspectors and described in six detailed reports.

"Evidence gathered by the IAEA makes a circumstantial case that is much stronger than the case that Iraq was restarting its nuclear program," said George Perkovich, a proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "The only thing missing in Iran is a weapons design."

Barring a last-minute surprise, insiders said, inspectors have no concrete evidence of a weapons program or new instances of concealment. Still, the report is expected to conclude that too many big mysteries remain for inspectors to give Iran a clean bill of health.

"There are many reasons for worrying about Iran's intentions, but you have to be careful jumping to saying there is a weapons program or not," one of the European diplomats said.

The most pressing concern is identifying the origins of small amounts of weapons-grade uranium and low-enriched uranium found at four locations during the last 18 months.

Iran says the material came from contaminated centrifuge components bought on the black market. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani scientist who helped develop his country's nuclear weapons, has confessed to selling components to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

In its September report, the IAEA said it was plausible that some of the enriched uranium came from Pakistani parts. But some concentrations were larger than simple contamination could explain, and not all of it was necessarily from Pakistan, the agency said.

Despite the high priority, inspectors have made no progress in answering the question because Pakistan refuses to cooperate fully, several diplomats familiar with the inquiry said.

Pakistan provided some data and said pointedly that not all of the enriched uranium came from its program, but diplomats said the Pakistanis had not allowed inspectors inside their nuclear plants to take samples.

The IAEA wants its own samples so independent laboratories can determine conclusively whether the material found in Iran matches enriched uranium produced by Pakistan.

ElBaradei said in late September that Pakistan had refused to let the agency question Khan. U.S. authorities also have been unable to interview the scientist. A Western diplomat complained that the Bush administration was not pressuring Pakistan to allow the IAEA to take samples or interview Khan.

The failure to trace the contamination leaves open the possibility that Iran produced weapons-grade uranium at a secret plant or bought it from an unknown supplier, diplomats said.

"Most of the traces are from Pakistan, but if some of it is not, then it is a serious issue that raises the possibility that Iran produced it," one of the European diplomats said.

Another issue is how much work Iran did on advanced centrifuge machines, known as P-2s.

In October 2003, Iran submitted a multivolume document to the IAEA that it said represented the complete history of its nuclear activities. But it began to unravel three months later.

When Libya decided to give up its clandestine nuclear weapons effort, it turned over information and technology to the IAEA and the U.S. It became clear that, like Iran, Libya had bought nuclear technology from Khan's network.

Comparing Libya's shopping list with what Iran had reported, IAEA inspectors were puzzled that the Libyans had managed to buy designs for Pakistan's P-2 centrifuges. The P-2 was far more efficient than the older P-1, which was what Iran had bought on the black market.

Inspectors had independent suspicions that Iran had been experimenting with another type of centrifuge. When confronted, Iran acknowledged that it had bought a complete set of P-2 designs in 1995.

Iranian officials explained that the P-2s had been left out of the October report because nobody asked about them and because the scientists were concentrating on the P-1.

The P-2 drawings were set aside for seven years and the only work involving them was a contract in 2002 for a small private business to conduct limited experiments, Iran said.

But when inspectors visited the business in Tehran, they found that the contractor had made a modification to the P-2 rotors that indicated extensive research had been done. They also found that he had ties to the military through other contracts.

"The modification didn't come out of thin air," a Western scientist said. "There was concern that work might have been conducted at some unknown place."

So far, the IAEA has neither a good answer from Iran about how much work it did on the P-2 nor any evidence of a P-2 plant.

Centrifuges are half the enrichment equation. The machines need uranium hexafluoride gas to manufacture enriched uranium.

Iran said it planned to transform 37 metric tons of yellowcake, a form of processed uranium ore, into uranium hexafluoride at the Esfahan plant this month.

David Albright, a physicist and former IAEA inspector who runs a think tank in Washington, said 37 tons was enough to make several nuclear weapons.

Iran turned out a small amount of uranium hexafluoride at the plant last spring, but a diplomat familiar with the current operations at Esfahan said it had not yet produced a larger batch.

Some Western officials have speculated that Iran is having technical trouble. But the diplomat said that the plant appeared ready to roll, and that he thought Iran had decided it was politically unwise to produce more uranium hexafluoride now.

Estimates vary on when the pilot plant at Natanz could start turning the gas into enriched uranium. The newest information indicates that Iran has moved much faster than anticipated.

One of the senior European diplomats said the pilot plant could begin operating on a small scale within weeks. In less than a year, he said, it could produce substantial quantities of low-enriched uranium.

"It would take a month to start to spit out enriched uranium, and the serious business would come about a year from now," he said. ...

Iran acknowledged last year that it had restarted the program in 1985. Officials said technology was bought secretly through front groups because of the sanctions.

Iran was in the middle of an eight-year war with Saddam Hussein, seemingly an odd time to devote scarce resources to an expensive program for generating electricity in a country with vast reserves of oil and natural gas.

Since the nuclear program was discovered, Iran's secret purchases, particularly of technology with both civilian and military applications, have received more scrutiny. The items it recently tried to buy included high-speed switches that could trigger a nuclear weapon and specialized cameras that could test a nuclear explosion.

Some older purchases also attracted new attention. Among them were attempts in the early 1990s to buy weapons-related nuclear technology for a physics research center, a diplomat involved in the review said.

The IAEA was monitoring the research center at Lavizan Shiyan on the outskirts of Tehran in November when U.S. spy satellites picked up heavy equipment beginning to demolish the complex. As buildings were knocked down, all the large chunks of rubble and tons of earth were hauled away.

Asked about the demolition, Iran told the IAEA the center had been built by the military in 1989 to evaluate and treat casualties in the event of a nuclear attack on Tehran. Authorities said it was being leveled to make way for a park.

Iranian authorities allowed inspectors to visit the now-barren site at the end of June but refused to give them access to the material taken away or a list of equipment used at the center, citing security concerns.

The report next month will say that environmental samples turned up no evidence of radioactive material, but diplomats said enough concerns remained that Lavizan Shiyan would not be scratched off the list of suspect sites.

IAEA inspectors are monitoring several other sites where weapons work might have occurred, diplomats said.

One is a military complex containing hundreds of buildings and bunkers at Parchin, about 20 miles southeast of Tehran. The IAEA had been trying to get permission to inspect it for several weeks when ABC News broadcast satellite images of Parchin in September along with U.S. accusations that it was a test site for nuclear weapons.

Tehran denied that nuclear weapons research was underway there and invited the IAEA to visit the site.

Iran wants only an informal visit, arguing that the location does not fall within IAEA jurisdiction because there are no nuclear activities there. The IAEA won't go unless Iran allows a full inspection, which would give inspectors the right to examine any part of the complex and take environmental samples to test for nuclear activity.

Despite the absence of hard evidence, U.S. officials say they remain convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Estimates differ on when Tehran might be able to produce a bomb. U.S. intelligence reports say it will take at least three more years. A leaked Israeli analysis predicts Iran could have an atomic weapon by 2007.

"The truth is that nobody knows for sure," said a Western intelligence official who monitors Iran. "But this is getting close to the end game."

Preparatory text for European proposals on Iran

AFP - World News (via Iranmania)
Oct 21, 2004

Vienna - Officials from Britain, France and Germany were in talks with their Iranian counterparts Thursday in Vienna at a meeting to give Tehran a final chance to reassure the world that it is not secretly developing atomic weapons.

The European nations are reported to be offering Iran valuable technology for peaceful nuclear energy if Iran complies, but possible UN sanctions if it does not.

Following are extracts from a confidential document, obtained by AFP, that was presented to the G8 group of leading industrialized nations last week.

Diplomats in Vienna said it remained the basis of the European position at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), although modifications might still be made.

The Europeans call on Iran:

-- "to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing related activities in a compehensive and internationally verifiable manner ... "

-- "the suspension will include the manufacture and import of gas centrifuges and their components; any assembly, installation, testing or operation of gas centrifuges; all other enrichment and reprocessing activities including work to construct or operate any plutonium separation facility; and the production of feed material for enrichment processes, including all activities to test or operate the uranium conversion facility ... any converted yellowcake should be put under IAEA safeguards."

-- "The suspension will be indefinite, until we reach an acceptable long term agreement."

If Iran complies:

-- "We would reaffirm the right of Iran to develop research production and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination in conformity with Article 2 of the NPT" (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

-- "We would support Russian/Iranian cooperation in the field of power reactors and fuel supply and management."

-- "We would be ready to give political assurances of access to the international fuel market, at market prices, consistent with G8/NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) comparable assurances, with spent fuel being returned and reprocessed outside of Iran."

-- "We would support the acquisition by Iran of a Light Water Research Reactor."

-- "The European Union would be ready to resume negotiations on an EU/Iran trade and cooperation agreement once suspension is verified."

-- "We would continue to support the adherence of Iran to the WTO."

-- "We would cooperate in the prevention and suppression of terrorist acts in accordance with respective legislation and regulations. We would continue to regard the MEK (Iranian resistance group) as a terrorist organization."

-- "We would pursue the objective of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction ... "

-- "We would agree to cooperate with Iran to help it establish and develop an effective national system of export, transit and end-use control of WMD related goods and technologies including dual use ... "

-- "We would agree to strengthen cooperation with Iran in the combat of all forms of drug production and trafficking, including in the regional context."

If Iran does not comply:

-- "We will support the referral of the Iranian nuclear issue to the UNSC (United Nations Security Council)."

-- "We would consider the opportunity presented by the Tehran agreement of 21 October 2003 to resolve the questions relating to Iran's nuclear programme within the framework of the IAEA not to have been taken by Iran."

Once at the Security Council:

-- "If an initial political call to Iran were not successful, the Security Council could then consider making the suspension mandatory. It could also consider strengthening the powers of the IAEA to carry out inspections in Iran."

-- "Should Iran reject the Security Council's demands, the Council would have to consider what measures might be appropriate under Article 41 of the UN charter. But we do not need to consider that in more detail at this stage."

Payvand's Iran News

10/22/04
EU says Vienna meeting with Iran "positive"
Brussels, Oct 22, IRNA -- The European Union is happy with the outcome of Thursday's meeting between representatives of Iran and the EU three, France, Germany, and the UK, to discuss Iran's nuclear program. "The meeting was positive. The two sides agreed to meet again next week to continue discussing the proposal that the European side has put at the table," EU diplomatic sources told reporters in Brussels Friday. A top diplomat representing EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also took part in the meeting which was held in the French mission of the Austrian capital. "Everybody came out of the meeting pleased that there is willingness to continue the discussions," said the sources requesting anonymity. "There is a possibility of moving things forward and the EU will do the maximum. The Europeans found the Iranian delegation constructive and with a willingness to engage. The reaction is positive," said the EU sources. "There are serious elements which constitute a package and we found the Iranians in a position to engage in such a discussion," said the sources, adding that the Americans are fully aware of the developments. Next week's expected meeting is most likely to be held in Vienna, the seat of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

10/22/04

EU says Vienna meeting with Iran "positive"

Brussels, Oct 22, IRNA -- The European Union is happy with the outcome of Thursday's meeting between representatives of Iran and the EU three, France, Germany, and the UK, to discuss Iran's nuclear program.

"The meeting was positive. The two sides agreed to meet again next week to continue discussing the proposal that the European side has put at the table," EU diplomatic sources told reporters in Brussels Friday.

A top diplomat representing EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also took part in the meeting which was held in the French mission of the Austrian capital.

"Everybody came out of the meeting pleased that there is willingness to continue the discussions," said the sources requesting anonymity.

"There is a possibility of moving things forward and the EU will do the maximum. The Europeans found the Iranian delegation constructive and with a willingness to engage. The reaction is positive," said the EU sources.

"There are serious elements which constitute a package and we found the Iranians in a position to engage in such a discussion," said the sources, adding that the Americans are fully aware of the developments.

Next week's expected meeting is most likely to be held in Vienna, the seat of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Europe and Iran to meet again next week on nuclear issue: diplomats

AFP: 10/22/2004

VIENNA, Oct 22 (AFP) - Europe's three key states are to meet with Iran next week to hear Tehran's response to their offer for it to avoid possible UN sanctions and receive nuclear technology by indefinitely suspending uranium enrichment, diplomats said Friday.

"Yes, it will be in Vienna, probably in mid-week," a diplomat close to the talks told AFP.

Britain, France and Germany had Thursday presented Iran with an EU-backed deal for it to receive valuable technology, including a light-water nuclear reactor which would produce less fissionable material than the heavy-water reactor Tehran wants to build, if it indefinitely suspended all uranium enrichment activities, said the diplomat, who asked not to be named.

The Europeans were following up on a call in September by the UN nuclear watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, for Iran to immediately suspend uranium enrichment, the process that makes fuel for civilian reactors but also the explosive material for nuclear weapons.

"We are at an initial stage, matters have to be considered on both sides," Iranian official Sirus Naseri told reporters after the three-hour meeting in Vienna.

"I think we'll get together in a matter of a few days," Naseri said Thursday.

An EU diplomat in Brussels said Friday that next week's meeting would be in "the same place, with the same people," including the political director for EU foreign affairs representative Javier Solana.

In Berlin, foreign ministry spokesman Walter Lindner said Germany wanted Iran to be given every available opportunity to continue negotiations with Europe until November 25, when the IAEA holds its next meeting.

Washington, which accuses Iran of working secretly to develop nuclear weapons, is pressuring the IAEA to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council, which could impose punishing sanctions.

The diplomat in Vienna said the talks had a difficult start as the Iranians were "aggressive. They were a little bit recriminatory saying 'you let us down, you betrayed us."

The European trio had in October 2003 struck a deal with Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, against promises of getting technology transfers.

But the deal has soured with the Europeans calling for Iran to halt all enrichment activities, including making centrifuges and the feed gas for the centrifuges which refine the uranium, and Iran saying such support activities were not included in the agreement.

Iran had expected the Europeans to get the IAEA to wrap up its investigation of the Iranian nuclear program by last June and for Tehran to get a clean bill of health on the atomic issue, which would open the door to increased trade and acquiring technology.

The diplomat said the Europeans had Thursday "tried to win the Iranians over, saying that the proposal was being presented in a careful, moderate prudent way."

The Iranians "said they hoped the proposal would be perceived in this way in the public arena," the diplomat said.

He said they said it was "very important for us" that for domestic Iranian politics they didn't look as if they had been pressured.

Another diplomat said the Europeans had presented their four-page proposal "and pressed for full suspension."

"Iran's response was that the proposal was unbalanced and that they would only agree to a temporary suspension since they would do nothing that would cut off their right to enrich uranium," the diplomat said.

The diplomat said the Iranians were expected to give a counter-proposal next week, which might call for them to reap the incentives offered "the moment they say yes to suspension, rather than waiting for a long-term agreement to be worked out."

10/22/2004 15:56 GMT - AFP

EU, Iran meet again next week on nuclear offer

22 Oct 2004 17:19:37 GMT

Source: Reuters

(Adds ElBaradei, comments from Iranian exiles on EU offer)

By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA, Oct 22 (Reuters) - French, British and German officials meet Iranian negotiators on Wednesday to discuss a European offer of nuclear technology if Tehran ends its uranium enrichment programme, diplomats said on Friday.

"The meeting is planned for Wednesday in Vienna," a senior diplomat close to the talks told Reuters.

Senior officials from the four countries met on Thursday to discuss the European proposal, which Iranian officials said they would be studying closely.

Both sides briefed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei about Thursday's meeting. He said talks were "moving in the right direction", an agency spokeswoman said.

If Iran rejects the EU offer, diplomats say most European nations will back U.S. demands that Tehran be reported to the U.N. Security Council for possible economic sanctions when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets on Nov. 25.

No breakthroughs are expected at next week's talks and Western diplomats said they did not expect Iran was ready to accept the offer.

They said the Iranians might try to suggest a compromise under which Iran would temporarily suspend some parts of its enrichment programme, which could be used to make fissile uranium for weapons. But this would not satisfy the EU.

RELUCTANT BLESSING

The EU "big three" have the reluctant blessing of the United States, diplomats say, despite Washington's belief Iran is using the talks to buy time to acquire the capability to build a nuclear bomb.

"At this point Iranian compliance doesn't seem likely ... based on Iran's history and their current expressions and the things that they're saying and doing right now," U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on Wednesday.

The IAEA, the U.N. atomic watchdog body, has been investigating Iran's nuclear programme for more than two years. It has uncovered many previously hidden activities that could be related to a weapons programme but has found no "smoking gun".

Iran maintains its nuclear programme is only for power generation -- a process that can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors or material for atom bombs.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) -- the political wing of the Iranian exiled group known as the People's Mujahideen Organisation (MKO) -- was angered by one section of the document outlining the terms of the EU's offer to Iran.

This section of the offer, seen in full by Reuters, said the EU would "would continue to regard the MKO as a terrorist organisation" if Iran complied with the terms of the offer.

The NCRI said the issue of whether or not the MKO was a terrorist organisation had nothing to do with Iran's willingness to accept the offer and should not be included.

The U.S. State Department has also labeled the MKO and NCRI as terrorist organisations.

Indian scientists sanctioned for assisting Iran on nukes

Washington Times - By Bill Gertz
Oct 22, 2004

The Bush administration has imposed sanctions on two Indian scientists for selling nuclear technology to Iran and is planning additional arms-related sanctions, U.S. officials said.

The two scientists were identified by the Bush administration as Shri Ch. Surendar and Y. Sivaraman Prasad, both former directors of the Nuclear Power Corp. of India, the state-run utility.

The scientists were among 14 persons and companies that were listed in the Federal Register for their role in transferring nuclear weapons-related technology to Iran in violation of U.S. counterproliferation laws.

Officials said additional sanctions have been approved and could be imposed on India in the near future in response to other Indian transfers of weapons-related goods to Iran.

The additional sanctions were slated to be discussed in New Delhi during meetings this week between senior Indian leaders and Christina Rocca, assistant secretary of state for South Asia.

Miss Rocca is in India as part of a program known as Next Steps in Strategic Partnership. The talks are focused on ways of loosening controls on the transfer of U.S. high-technology goods to India, which have been restricted because of India's nuclear arms program and its 1998 underground nuclear tests.

The sanctions on the scientists, which were listed in the Federal Register Sept. 29, are largely symbolic. They bar the scientists from doing business with the U.S. government or acquiring U.S. goods requiring export licenses.

Officials said the Indian scientists were involved in helping Iran's nuclear program. Tehran has refused to halt production of highly enriched uranium, which can be used for weapons.

However, public identification of the scientists and their role in arms proliferation can be a deterrent that will make further exchanges more difficult, the officials said.

Officials compared the Indian scientists to Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan, who ran a covert network that provided weapons equipment, namely centrifuges, to Iran, Libya and North Korea. But officials said the Indians' activities were not as damaging as Mr. Khan's.

U.S. plans for expanding cooperation with India in the area of high-technology and defense goods have been made more difficult by India's trade with Iran, the officials said.

India and Iran signed an agreement in January 2003 that called for science and technology and defense cooperation. Last month, India's state-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd. announced that it sought government permission to sell Iran several upgraded Super Fledermaus air-defense radars.

The Bush administration is opposing the radar transfer as it could be used to guard Iranian nuclear facilities.

A U.S. trade official said the technology dialogue with India has produced assurances that New Delhi will not provide weapons-related technology to Iran. Also, the government has agreed to allow a U.S. export-control official to be posted at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, to monitor sensitive U.S. technology transfers.

The official said the two scientists' activities did not appear to be sanctioned by the Indian government. "There are problems and we're trying to address them in our dialogue," the official said.

U.S. officials said evidence of the scientists' involvement in the Iranian nuclear program comes from intelligence information.

Officials would not provide details on the pending sanctions against India but said they involved weapons-related technology transfers to Iran.

U.S. and Indian officials reported making progress in the talks on advanced technology cooperation yesterday. The two nations are hoping to cooperate on civilian nuclear and space technology, high-technology trade and missile defense, a State Department official said.

US names Iran price

K.P. NAYAR

Washington, Oct. 22: An olive branch now being extended to New Delhi to reconsider sanctions against two Indian scientists – Y.S.R. Prasad and C. Surendar -- may be a ploy by Washington to get the Manmohan Singh government to reveal the full extent of the wide-ranging cooperation that exists between India and Iran.

Bush administration officials are now categorically telling reporters in Washington in background briefings that they are willing to re-examine the penalties imposed on the two men who once headed the Nuclear Power Corporation of India.

The concession, according to sources here, has also been conveyed during meetings between Christina Rocca, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, and officials in New Delhi this week.

Questioned on the record soon after their names appeared on the Federal Register of sanctioned entities, state department officials were beating about the bush, merely hinting that protestations of innocence by the two men may be looked into.

Momentum here in favour of a review of the sanctions against Prasad and Surendar gathered speed this week after national security adviser J.. Dixit concluded a three-day visit to Tehran on October 19.

The visit made it clear that the Manmohan Singh government would not turn back from the wide-ranging cooperation that India has built with Iran, although President George W. Bush has made the Islamic government in Tehran a part of his infamous “axis of evil”.

Dixit’s visit has worried Washington because he is the author of a historic change in India’s policy towards Iran during the years from 1992 to 1994 when he was foreign secretary.

The change weaned Iran’s mullahs away from Pakistan and culminated in 1994 in unprecedented support by Iranian diplomats for India at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva against Pakistan.

The Iranians persuaded Pakistan to withdraw its resolution in Geneva on Kashmir, which had a fair chance of passing. If the resolution had passed, it would have been a permanent thorn in India’s side like the notorious UN resolution on Kashmir plebiscite, adopted shortly after India’s partition.

Bush administration officials who have been briefing reporters this week about the possibility of letting Prasad and Surendar off the hook plainly say their offer is conditional: India must provide irrefutable proof that they were not involved in any A.Q. Khan-type of shenanigans with Tehran.

The catch there is that once India takes this bait and starts sharing information with the Americans, administration officials here will keep insisting that the proof provided to them is inconclusive and that more information is needed.

Typically, they will keep digging until they can get everything they are seeking about Indo-Iranian relations. All the while, they will provide no guarantees that the two Indian scientists will be relieved of the sanctions.

What the Americans have in mind is the kind of diplomatic arm-twisting the Third World nations are familiar with.

Once the process of sharing information with the Americans is set in motion, India will also not be in control of its media fallout.

On any day. the state department’s spokesman can get up on his podium and get international media attention on the issue by saying that New Delhi has failed to provide proof of the innocence of the two men.

Already, the Americans have said that New Delhi was consulted prior to the sanctions, but that it failed to respond. Effectively, this has put the ball in India’s court.

One American official with experience of how things are done in New Delhi told this correspondent: “These guys (Prasad and Surendar) are no regular guys. They have clout in Delhi. They will do the job of arm-twisting there into giving us the dope we are looking for.”

In order to tighten the screws on India, officials have discreetly circulated speculation this week that more Indian entities would be sanctioned after the November 2 election for alleged ties with Iran.

Analysis: Disunited Reformist Front In Iran Seeks Presidential Candidate

"The reformist current is now a dead current, and I think it is going to be highly unlikely for it to be able to find a unanimously agreed candidate in the forthcoming presidential election," Tehran parliamentary representative Emad Afruq said according to "Kayhan" on 16 October. As a member of the conservative Islamic Iran Developers Council (Etelaf-i Abadgaran-i Iran-i Islami), one might expect such negative statements from Afruq.

Yet there is little question that former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Musavi's refusal to run for president has left the reformist parties wondering whom to back now. Moreover, the lack of unity in the reformist front, a possible cause of the trouncing the reformists suffered at the polls in February, is not helping the situation.

Mustafa Derayati, a member of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Party's central council, said on 15 October that with Musavi's refusal to run for president, his organization will back former Science, Research, and Technology Minister Mustafa Moin, Mehr News Agency reported. Derayati said the Participation Party has not yet spoken with Moin.

The more progressive reformist organizations, namely the Participation Party and the Mujahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization, are trying to persuade the Militant Clerics Association (Majma-yi Ruhaniyun-i Mubarez) and the Executives of Construction Party to back Moin's candidacy, "Sharq" reported on 18 October.

Moin is trained as a physician, but his background since the revolution makes him a good candidate for president, according to the reformist daily. Moin was born in Najafabad, home of Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri, but he has never been accused of close ties with the dissident cleric. Nor has he been accused of ignoring religious issues like veiling, being pro-Western, or secularism. Moin, Abdolkarim Sorush, Ali Shariatmadari, and Ahmad Ahmadi were members of the Cultural Revolution Headquarters established in 1980 that was tasked with training and vetting professors, selecting students, and Islamizing universities and their curricula. His most important responsibility was serving on the committee that selected students, according to "Sharq," and he was not involved with the initial purge of the universities.

Political commentators in Iran are warning that the divisions over a candidate will torpedo the reformists' election hopes.

In the mid-1990s, "Sharq" continued, Moin was secretary of the Coordination Council of the Group's Following the Imam's Line, a left-wing coalition that included the Mujahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization and the Office for Strengthening Unity. As a minister in the Khatami cabinet, Moin submitted his resignation unsuccessfully twice -- once after the violent suppression of student demonstrations in July 1999 and again after student unrest in May 2003. Moin resigned in July 2003 mainly because the Guardians Council rejected a bill for restructuring his ministry (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," 4 August 2003).

Former Tehran parliamentary representative and student activist Ali Akbar Musavi-Khoeni told a gathering of the Office for Strengthening Unity that the only presidential candidate that could challenge the conservatives is Expediency Council Chairman and former President Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, "Farhang-i Ashti" reported on 16 October. If Hashemi-Rafsanjani refuses, he said, the Executives of Construction Party, the Islamic Labor Party, and the Labor House will back anyone that Hashemi-Rafsanjani recommends.

The 70-year-old Hashemi-Rafsanjani, however, continues to indicate his lack of enthusiasm for a third term as president (he was president in 1989-97). He said in an 18 October meeting with parliamentarians and other officials that new people must enter the political scene, ISNA reported. Addressing the Iran Specialists Association (Majma-yi Motakhasesan-i Iran) and several parliamentary representatives, he said, "The interests of the state necessitate that the world should feel that Iran has the potential to produce capable individuals."

Hashemi-Rafsanjani indicated that he would serve as president again only with great reluctance: "I am a soldier of the revolution and I am willing to spend the rest of my life serving the revolution and Islam. I am quite prepared to serve in any position that the state and people feel I will be of some use. However, I prefer other honest and capable individuals to assume the responsibilities of the chief executive." Hashemi-Rafsanjani added that the current international and domestic climates make management of the country difficult.

If Hashemi-Rafsanjani does decide to run, Noshahr va Chalus representative Anushiravan Muhseni Bandpai told Mehr News Agency on 20 October, he would be out of range of conservative sniping. Moreover, he would be more popular than the other possible conservative candidates -- Ali Larijani, Ali Akbar Velayati, or Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad -- and he could side somewhat with the reformist front.

Political commentators in Iran are warning that these divisions over a candidate will torpedo the reformists' election hopes. "Given the existence of divisions within the 2nd of Khordad Front [named after the date of President Mohammad Khatami's May 1997 election]," former student activist and Tehran parliamentary representative Ali Akbar Musavi-Khoeni said, "it seems unlikely it will be able to play an effective role in the [upcoming presidential] elections." He recommended that the reformist grouping increase its popular support by opening its doors to the national-religious activists and the banned (but tolerated) Freedom Movement, "Farhang-i Ashti" reported on 16 October. Musavi-Khoeni said the Islamic Iran Participation Party has accepted the Freedom Movement and its members have participated in some Participation Party events; he said other political organizations should do the same.

U.S. Hostages Captured 25 Years Ago in Iran Come Forward and Speak With Media

** Rare Interview Opportunities With U.S. Hostages **

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is being issued by
Ketchum Public Affairs:

What: November 4, 2004 will mark the 25th anniversary of the beginning of
the Iran Hostage Crisis, where 52 employees of the U.S. Embassy in
Iran were held hostage for 444 days before their release in January
1981. This event marked the start of a new era of Islamic
terrorist attacks on Americans and forever changed our nation's
policies on dealing with terrorists.

For 14 months, Americans closely followed the hostages' story.
During their period of captivity, the Iranian captors subjected the
hostages to physical and mental torture, including brutal beatings,
violent interrogations, threats of execution as spies, and mock
executions.

25 years later, many of these hostages are still talking about
their experience, and are willing to come forward to share their
story of life as a former hostage and how it has impacted their
lives, today.

Who: Ketchum Public Affairs in Washington, D.C. will be arranging
interviews for media interested in talking to the former hostages
who live throughout the United States.

When: Available immediately

Armed Rebels Included in Incentive Offer From Europe

AP - World News
Oct 22, 2004

VIENNA -- An Iranian exile group bristled Friday at a European offer of incentives aimed at getting the Tehran regime to stop uranium enrichment, saying it included a promise that the European Union would continue viewing one of its key members as a terrorist organization.

In a statement made available to The Associated Press, the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran said the text - formally presented to Iran this week by the U.K., France and Germany - "makes a mockery of the war against terrorism."

European negotiators included a reference to the Iranian resistance group MEK in their last-chance offer of a trade deal and peaceful civilian nuclear technology to entice Iran to give up enrichment and avoid the looming threat of U.N. sanctions.

The document presented to an Iranian delegation in Vienna Thursday included a pledge that the Europeans "would continue to regard the MEK as a terrorist organization." The MEK, the main group in the resistance council's coalition, also is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations.

The council called the continued terrorist designation "shameful," and it accused the Iranian authorities of using the E.U.'s characterization as a pretext "to torture, execute and suppress dissidents."

The council urged the international community to stop blacklisting the group, which it contends will "only lead to the rise in human rights abuses in Iran and the increasing role of the mullahs in international terrorism."

Last month, the National Council of Resistance of Iran claimed to have uncovered more evidence that Iran 's nuclear activities are broader than it has publicly admitted. It alleged that Iran has a hidden uranium processing plant near Bandar Abbas, a major industrial port in southern Iran that is home to a missile production facility, an oil refinery and a large thermal power plant.

Two years ago, the Iranian opposition was the first to make public that Iran was running a secret uranium enrichment program.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and geared solely toward generating electricity. The U.S. contends it is covertly trying to build atomic weaponry and is pressing to report it to the U.N. Security Council, which has the authority to impose punishing sanctions.

Diplomats involved in the incentives package could not immediately be reached for comment Friday on the council's protest.

E.U. officials in Brussels, Belgium, said Friday they were pleased with the way the talks with Iran went and described the proposal under discussion as an E.U. initiative. They said there will be another meeting in Vienna next week on the package.

Thursday, Iranian delegates said they would take the proposal back to Tehran for study.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors will deliver a fresh assessment of Iran 's cooperation with the nuclear agency on Nov. 25.

The U.K., France and Germany have said they likely will back Washington's call to report Iran to the Security Council as defiant and noncompliant at that meeting if Tehran does not agree to the incentives, suspend uranium enrichment and agree to IAEA verification that it has done so.

Iran has resumed testing, assembling and making centrifuges used to enrich uranium, heightening U.S. concerns that its sole purpose is to build a bomb.

The Lethal Lot of the Poor

October 21, 2004
The Economist
The Economist Print Edition

A saga of murder that highlights the vulnerability of Iran's urban poorest.

A young man develops a taste for raping and killing people, mostly small boys, and hiding their corpses in the wasteland of the open-air brick factories that he inhabits. The police are indifferent to the pleas of distraught parents, who are mostly rural migrants and Afghan refugees; by the time the murderer is brought to book, the death toll stands at 20. As an emblem of social decay and official ineptitude, this tale from the ribbon developments near Pakdasht, on Tehran's insalubrious southern fringe, takes some beating.

Embarrassed by the media's attention, the authorities are trying to make amends. Negligent policemen have been referred to the courts. A government report concedes that inquiries that “could have halted the murders” were not made. Last week, Muhammad Bijeh, the crimes' unrepentant perpetrator, was sentenced to hang. Iran's top policeman, Muhammad Baqer Ghalibaf, pledges to absorb the appropriate lessons.

The learning curve will be steep. “Going missing is not a crime,” is how the (now-sacked) local police chief justified his apparent indifference to the spate of disappearances. After his ten-year-old son failed to return home last winter, says Ghollam-Reza Amini, no fewer than three local police stations disclaimed jurisdiction over the area where the boy had been playing. A few weeks—and two murders—later, Mr Bijeh was arrested. He was subsequently freed, and committed seven more murders.

“We are poor illiterates,” says one of Mr Amini's neighbours, trying to explain the official unconcern. “No one cares about us.” Mr Ghalibaf was at pains to correct this impression when he visited Pakdasht recently; he lavished praise on the 450 local boys who went to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and gave warning against “imagining that there can be security in a society that does not possess the minimum needed for living.”

The semi-slums around Pakdasht are such a society, and Mr Bijeh's charge sheet records the human consequences of Iran's two-decade-long wave of rural-urban migration. His accomplice, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison, is a drug addict, as was one of the adult victims. The only woman killed by Mr Bijeh seems to have been a prostitute. Another victim was a child labourer. Child or adult, Iranian or Afghan, all were poor.

All in all, Pakdasht people are sceptical of the concern Mr Ghalibaf expressed for the downtrodden during his visit. The Islamic Republic was founded on concern for the poor and economically exploited, and it is they, in Pakdasht at least, who feel most let down.

Pakdasht's Afghans feel especially aggrieved. Though neither defendant was Afghan, Mr Ghalibaf has pointedly lamented the presence in Iran of “uncontrolled numbers of foreign citizens”. His sentiments were presumably shared by the duty officer to whom one Afghan reported his son's disappearance. “Well, that's one less of you,” the officer is said to have replied. “Now, get out.”

Bump!

Iran nuclear deal 'tied to US election'

Friday 22 October 2004, 19:02 Makka Time, 16:02 GMT

Analysts have said Iran will wait until after the US elections to respond to a European offer to avoid possible UN sanctions by indefinitely suspending uranium enrichment.

The analysts added the deal had no chance of success if the United States did not back the British-French-German offer, which includes non-nuclear items such as supporting Iran's joining the World Trade Organisation.

According to a confidential document prepared by the Europeans in advance of the talks, Britain, France and Germany presented Iran on Thursday with a deal to receive valuable nuclear technology if it indefinitely suspended all uranium-enrichment activities.

The deal includes a light-water reactor which would produce less fissionable material than the heavy-water reactor Tehran wants to build.

Iran said the talks would continue. "We are at an initial stage, matters have to be considered on both sides," Iranian official Cyrus Naseri told reporters after the three-hour meeting in Vienna.

Endgame talk

"It was pretty clear that this meeting would not be decisive,"
Gary Samore of the London think-tank International Institute of Strategic Studies, said on Friday.

On November 25, the IAEA will
decide if Iran is cooperating

"This is the beginning of the endgame, not the endgame," Samore said. The meeting was to give Iran a last chance to come clean before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decides on 25 November whether Iran is cooperating or not.

The United States wants the Vienna-based IAEA, which since
February 2003 has been investigating Iran on US claims that the Islamic Republic has a covert nuclear weapons programme, to send Iran to the UN Security Council, which could impose punishing sanctions.

But the European trio have so far opposed this, favouring instead a policy of "constructive engagement" to get Tehran to cooperate.

Election calculations

Samore said he thought the Iranians were "waiting for the US
elections" on 2 November, with different calculations depending on whether incumbent President George Bush or his challenger John Kerry wins.

Samore said the Iranian goal is to have the international
community recognise its right to uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian reactors but can also manufacture the explosive material for atomic bombs.

Iran might try to take advantage
of a Kerry victory, analysts say

The Iranians might try to take advantage of a Kerry victory by agreeing to a three-month full extension from November until when Kerry takes office in January.

"I think if Kerry wins, Iran would strike a compromise that
would essentially delay the issue until early next year," Samore said.

"I don't get a sense that Iran is ready to agree to the
suspension. I could see the Iranians restoring the suspension for only a brief period of time," Samore said.

Assurances wanted

But David Albright, a former IAEA inspector and president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said, he "can't believe Iran would turn down" the European trio's package, which includes a recognition of Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology, measures to increase trade and backing of some of Iran's regional security concerns.

"If Iran turns this down, reasonable people would have to
[conclude] the country wants nuclear weapons," Albright said.

Albright, who is a physicist, said he was concerned about
offering Iran a light-water reactor, since this can still produce
fissionable material, but he said he thought the risks could be
managed by using the right fuel, namely 19% enriched
uranium.

Albright said the larger problem is that "Iran wants assurances
from the United States that Washington is not going to overthrow the Tehran regime".

The deal "can't move forward without the United States buying into it", Albright said.

Every country except 2 or 3 are assisting Iran with scientific and economic assistance to join the nuclear club.
Talk about die consequences.

Time is running out.

Senior Iran MP says EU nuclear demands unacceptable

(AFP)
23 October 2004

TEHERAN - A senior MP on Saturday branded as inacceptable Europe’s call for Iran to halt all uranium enrichment activities in return for receiving certain nuclear technology, in Tehran’s first reaction to the proposal.

“The European proposal is an excessive demand that is contrary to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and unacceptable,” Alaeddin Brujerdi, head of parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, told conservative newspaper Ressalat.

Britain, France and Germany presented Iran Thursday with a deal to receive valuable nuclear technology if the Islamic republic indefinitely suspended all uranium enrichment activities, according to a document prepared by the Europeans.

Thursday’s meeting was to give Iran a last chance to come clean before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decides on November 25 whether Iran is cooperating with the UN watchdog on its nuclear activities.

The United States wants the IAEA, which since February 2003 has been investigating US claims that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons programme, to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

Under the deal offered Thursday, Iran would receive technology including including a light-water reactor, which would produce less fissionable material than the heavy-water reactor Tehran is planning to build.

Iran has insisted on its right to uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian reactors but can also manufacture the explosive material for atomic bombs.

Iran before the storm

So far, Iran's conservatives have maintained the upper hand, but foreign pressure might tip the balance in the reformers' favour, writes Mustafa El-Labbad

Iran is entering a qualitatively new phase in its modern history. The shift, moreover, is occurring at several levels simultaneously due to the interplay between the changes in the domestic political map with the swing back to the conservatives and outside pressure escalating over the nuclear issue.

The intensification of foreign pressure could not have come at a more delicate time for Iran whose conservative wing, if it is to consolidate itself in power, must "purge" the judicial and executive decision-making centres of reformists. It is precisely here that Iran shows one of its weak points in the face of foreign pressure.

The power struggle over the shape of the government has so far come out overwhelmingly in favour of the conservatives. However, the façade of democratic openness that the regime tries to project at home and abroad is beginning to crack. Indicative of this are the actions of Iran's Vice-President Mohammed Ali Abtahi and former prime minister Mir Hussein Mousawi. Abtahi resigned in protest against the mounting conservative pressures against reformists and Mousawi decided not to run in the forthcoming presidential elections in May on a reformist ticket because he feels the pace of change is too slow.

As Iran's "conservative versus reformist" battle continues to unfold, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has declared that it has given Iran until the next IAEA meeting in November to prove that it does not possess nuclear technology. If Iran fails to meet this deadline it will turn the Iranian nuclear case over to the UN Security Council. Regardless of this contorted logic that has Iran guilty before proven innocent, the fulfillment of this ultimatum would have grave legal ramifications for Tehran.

By merely coming under UN Security Council scrutiny over its nuclear capabilities, Iran effectively loses its sovereign status. Iran would become subject to internationally stipulated deadlines, conditions and inspection demands, as was the case with Iraq from the end of the second Gulf war until the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The IAEA decision marks the first concrete step in this direction as it constitutes the first time that Iran has been given a deadline to prove that it does not possess nuclear technology for military purposes. During this time it has also been instructed to stop all uranium enrichment processes.

Such is the nature of nuclear technology that it will be very difficult for Iran to prove that it is on the right side of that fine hairline's difference between peaceful and military nuclear technology. More difficult yet is to prove lack of the intent to develop nuclear technology for military purposes since the possession of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes renders the possible transition to military usage so much easier.

The decision to ban Iran from possessing this technology is a political one par excellence. The last thing Washington and Israel want is a nuclear power in the region altering the balance of power and capable of thwarting their own political and strategic ambitions. This is the substance of the Iranian nuclear issue; all other technical and legal demands on Iran are merely variations on the theme.

Iran peers out at a barren and brutal international landscape. It has no major allies to speak of now that the countries of the G8, following their latest meeting, have ranged themselves against it.

Even France, which has traditionally maintained a strong and special relationship with Iran, has cautioned Tehran to stop refining uranium and to forget about possessing nuclear technology because "time is growing short." Perhaps France had learned from its experience in opposing the war to occupy Iraq. There was nothing to be gained from standing in the path of America's ambitions and facilitating these ambitions would guarantee it a place on the victors' table.

Nevertheless, the Iranians have often proved themselves skillful negotiators, tacticians and hagglers in the global political bazaar. They are good at the calculated offensive when circumstances permit, but they also know when to bow out gracefully when a storm threatens.

Perhaps, therefore, Iran will manage to bargain on a willingness to abandon its nuclear programme. This could be in exchange for guarantees of non-interference with its political system and for participating as an internationally recognised power in the formulation of the regional policies and designs. In other words, perhaps it will be able to obtain the strategic advantages of possessing nuclear technology without actually possessing it.

Europe is currently using the carrot-and-stick approach towards Iran, offering it economic and political privileges if Iran abandons its possession of nuclear technology. The US, on the other hand, has succeeded in tightening the legal and diplomatic siege on Iran preparatory to homing in its sights following the US presidential elections.

It should be stressed that the imminent confrontation between the US and Tehran is not one between "good" and "evil" or "Christianity" and "Islam". It is a conflict between a regional power that possesses all the qualifications for this role and has so far succeeded in preserving a level of political independence, and the world's sole superpower whose leadership has thrown international law to the wind and is thrusting itself upon the world like a bull in a china shop.

The storm clouds are gathering over Iran and the wind is howling. But, even if this particular storm blows over, there is no doubt that the meeting of the IAEA in November will mark a turning point in the history of Iran and the Middle East as a whole.

Iran claims $97.2b reparations from Iraq: MEES

DUBAI: Iran has asked the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to add 97.2 billion dollars to its Iraqi debt assessment to cover reparations for the 1980-1988 war between the two states, Middle East Economic Survey (MEES) reports in its latest edition.

Quoting “authoritative sources,” the industry newsletter said the request, made in a letter sent to the IMF last month, “could not have come at a worse time for Iraq” as it negotiates a reduction in its foreign debt.

According to the IMF, Iraq is saddled with a foreign debt estimated at 120 billion dollars, excluding reparations it owes Kuwait for its 1990 invasion of the emirate and the subsequent Gulf War.

Pressure is building among Western creditors to reach an agreement on canceling all or part of the debt by the end of the year.

But key creditors in the Group of Seven industrialized nations are at odds over just how much should be forgiven immediately, with France advocating a 50-percent reduction and the United States and Britain urging a cut of 95 percent.

According to MEES, the Iranian claim covers the non-military cost of the war to Iran, and while it is not the first time Tehran has made such claims, it is the first time it has put its claims forward to an international organization.

It is unclear how the IMF, which concluded a debt sustainability analysis earlier this year, will deal with Tehran’s request “since there is no UN resolution that takes into account the Iranian compensation claim,” the Cyprus-based newsletter added in its edition due out on Monday. afp