November 23, 2004

Iranian objections threaten nuclear deal

From Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor, in Sharm el-Sheikh

Iran today raised last minute objections to the wording of an agreement to limit its controversial nuclear programme, raising fears of a confrontation on Thursday at a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, at a meeting in Egypt that Iran wanted two key paragraphs reworked, two weeks after the text of the agreement was finalised in Paris.

"We hope to have an agreement," said Mr Straw. "Minister Kharrazi made strong representations to me about some aspects of the resolution. We all look forward to it being resolved."

The deal struck earlier this month calls on Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment programme and open its nuclear facilities to inspectors from the IAEA, the nuclear watchdog.

In return Britain, France and Germany have pledged to reward Iran by boosting trade and political relations between the European Union and Tehran. They may also help Iran build a civilian nuclear programme.

The compromise also protects Iran from America, which has accused the Iranians of secretly trying to assemble a nuclear bomb and wants the regime referred to the UN Security Council for possible punitive sanctions.

Iran announced yesterday that it had suspended its enrichment programme and allowed IAEA inspectors to visit nuclear sites.

But British officials said today that Iran raised objections about the wording of the freeze on enrichment and how the suspension would be monitored. In particular the Iranians want to avoid "an automatic trigger" that could lead to the country being referred to the UN Security Council if it was found in breach of the resolution. "We have 48 hours of hard work to do," said a British official.

While the British, French and German foreign ministers pressed Mr Kharrazi in Sharm el-Sheikh, diplomats in Vienna were working through the text searching for new wording that would satisfy all sides. "We are close but not there yet."

The Iranians have made it clear that they have only "suspended" but not terminated their enrichment programme, which critics suspect is a cover for making highly enriched uranium capable of being used in a nuclear warhead. The Europeans are hoping that the suspension will be made permanent when Tehran enjoys the benefits of its improved relations with Brussels.

The wording of the final resolution must also satisfy countries like America, Australia, Canada and Japan that want guarantees that the deal will prevent Iran from pursuing a secret atomic weapons project.

IAEA sources predicted that a compromise would finally be reached. "We have had six rounds of these talks. Even when the situation looks difficult, we always seem to get a consensus at the end," said the source.

One diplomat, with long experience in dealing with the Iranians, said he was not surprised by the last minute objections. "Negotiating with the Iranians is like buying a used car. You agree on the price, but when you take delivery find there are only three wheels. There is always something that needs to be fixed," said the diplomat.

Ending Iran's Terror Regime

By Mohammad Parvin
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 23, 2004

The task of changing the regime of terror in Iran and establishing a secular democratic government undertaken by freedom-loving Iranian people is huge and difficult, but Iranians are capable of defeating their enemy, the Islamic Regime, if it is not supported by the interest-driven industrial power. The European Union’s support of the Islamic Regime of Iran (IRI), and its legitimization and acceptance, has been devastating to Iranians. The recent EU-IRI nuclear agreement with the Islamic Regime is the utmost shameless act of appeasement of terror masters in Iran. Is the U.S. going to endorse these appeasing policies?

Unfortunately, there are also reasons to be concerned about the U.S. approach towards the Islamic Regime in light of its nuclear activities. During the election campaign and especially presidential debates, President Bush indicated many times that the U.S. government has given this message to mullahs directly and also through the EU that “if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs.”

Based on the recent EU-IRI agreement, the murderous regime of Iran has been offered lucrative incentives even without accepting this offer. IRI has volunteered to suspend its enrichment process, and the text of the agreement has made it quite clear that this is only a formality: “The E3/EU recognizes that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation.”

It is indeed an “all carrots, no stick” agreement that is designed to embrace a terrorist regime that is not giving up anything.

The message is very clear for the Iranians who cannot live under such a reactionary religious dictatorship, and believe that they deserve a secular democratic government: “We have finally converted the most active sponsor of terrorism and have brought it into the civilized world. Just live with it.”

Well, we have news for you. We believe Iranians will not accept your advice; we will not!

There is no doubt that the nuclear ambitions and activities of the Islamic Regime are a danger to the whole world and must be stopped. However, it is a huge mistake to ignore the very terrorist nature of this regime and assume that, regardless of what it is doing to the Iranians, it can be brought into the “world community” by bribes and lucrative incentives. The reality of the Islamic Regime based on its track record is that the very existence of this monster is not only a daily danger to the lives of millions of Iranians, it is a danger to the entire world. This threat must be removed.

Iranian people can do it. Iranians can change this regime on their own and, by doing so, bring peace and freedom to Iran and security to the whole world. What is expected from the U.S. government is the curtailment of the will of the interest-driven institutions and companies, and that it stand with the Iranian people in their struggle against the clerical dictatorship by addressing simple demands.

So, what are President Bush and State Secretary, Condoleezza Rice, going to do with respect to Iran? If the US government wants to be on the side of the brave Iranians who have not given up hopes in spite of confronting a brutal regime and all its western supporters, they should just give them moral support by declaring that the U.S. government does not recognize the Islamic Regime as Iranians’ representatives, and that they refrain from establishing friendly relations with such abusers of the Iranian people. This support should be manifested in certain actions and not stop at words.

We expect the U.S. not to help this terrorist regime and not to legitimize it regardless of the promised compliance with curbing of nuclear activities. We expect a rigid sanction against IRI - not a phony type that we have witnessed during the past years, and not of the type that would exclude Halliburton, GE and more than 200 other American companies - we expect a genuine and real one. We expect the U.S. to reduce its diplomatic relations with the Islamic Regime to the lowest possible level. This regime is not the representative of the Iranian people, and we challenge those who think otherwise by an internationally monitored referendum.

We believe that this is all most Iranians expect from the U.S. and other countries. Just do not help this terrorist regime! Iranians themselves will topple the Islamic Regime of Iran through disobedience and non-violent action. The EU will soon find out that their investments in Iran under Mullahs can never be safe because the brave Iranians will not ever allow this murderous regime to stabilize. A free Iran will not forgive those governments that betrayed its people, and it will not honor deals made by a terrorist regime.

The U.S. has the humane option of standing on the side of the brave Iranians who have not given up hope in spite of confronting a brutal regime and all its western supporters, and are fighting for a secular democratic regime. When this struggle succeeds to eliminate the IRI, the cause of terror, not only the Iranians will embrace peace and justice, but the entire world will be a safer place.

Mohammad Parvin is an adjunct professor at the California State University and director of the Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran (MEHR) - http://mehr.org

The Elephant in the Room, Part 5

by Dan Darling at November 23, 2004 09:53 AM

This is something of a way of summarizing all of my most recent posts with respect to Iran and the logical conclusions that we can derive from recent events there (it will be updated later tomorrow when I return from class to explain why no guarantees we provide will be sufficient deterrence to the current Iranian regime). On Wednesday, you'll get my policy recommendations for how we deal with Iran as well as the reason why I believe that Iran is more of a threat to US interests than is Pakistan. This will also touch on some of the reasons why I believe Pollack's argument is more or less flawed, entirely apart from my earlier pop psycho-analysis of why I think he wrote The Persian Puzzle.

The Bad Guys Are In Charge

Since the election of President Khatami in 1997, a number of European governments and officials within our own State Department have pressed for a policy of engagement (particularly the economic variety) with the Iranian regime, arguing that it will strengthen the reformists' hand and lead to the eventual full democratization of Iranian society. Whether or not this argument had any objective merit to it is a quite worthwhile discussion, but it is also largely academic. Since 9/11, we have seen progressive marginalization of any serious efforts at reforming the Iranian system from within and watched Khatami behave more or less like a labor boss who's been bought off by the mob (unfortunately, I can't take credit for that, Joe was the one who came up with such a great formulation) in face of the Expediency Council and the Council of Guardians. These actions have more or less left the inmates in control of the assylum and led to widespread popular unrest that we've seen put down again and again by the likes of the brownshirts in the Baseej and the Hezb-e-Ansar. A lot of people have died or been imprisoned, but the end-result has been that the nastiest elements of the Iranian polity are now in control of the elected, military-intelligence, and clerical sections of government.

The emergence of the Abadgaran movement and its counterparts in other sections of the Iranian hierarchy as the hardliners have consolidated their control over the government should give us a pretty good idea of who we're dealing with:

Abadgaran’s aggressive pursuit of its political vision seems to have caught not only Khatami-aligned reformists off guard, it also has surprised Old-Guard conservatives – namely the actual participants in the 1979 Islamic revolution whose idealism has faded over subsequent decades. The young neo-cons still tenaciously believe in the earlier utopian notions of the revolution; a theocratic and authoritarian state structure; an egalitarian and state-owned economic system; and a messianic foreign policy ...

... Abadgaran members clearly want to develop into the dominant faction within the conservative camp. In striving to do so, the movement has attracted the backing of the Revolutionary Guards and many hardliners within the political and security establishments, as well as a significant number of religiously-inclined members of Iran’s lower and middle classes.

This is part of the problems inherent in the "engaging Iran" policy. The issue is no longer whether or not we can engage Khatami and strengthen him enough so that he can start to implement some Gorbachev-style reforms within the Khomeinist system but rather whether we're going to be dealing with the utopians in the Abadgaran movement or the more cynical pragmatists like Rafsanjani. When the choice is between a fanatic and a manipulator, the question is basically whether you want to deal with someone who's going to shoot you in the head or someone who's going to stab you in the back. Or to put it another way, there should be something inherently disturbing about a situation in which Rafsanjani is to be viewed as the voice of sweet reason.

Moreover, I think that the kind of situation we are now in with respect to issues of engagement becomes quite clear in listing what exactly some of the goals of Rafsanjani and people like him are:

1. Power. Or to put it quite simply, they seek to guarantee their own power and the system that supports it throughout the duration of their lifetime. That means that they will be completely unwilling to accept any scenario that they will regard as leading to eventual regime change or a fundamental shift in the Iranian form of governance.

2. Regional influence. Iran, even before Khomeini, has long regarded itself as a kind of "regional hegemony" for the Middle East and its various attempts to destabilize neighboring states in favor of either pro-Iranian Shi'ites (Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen come to mind as some of the most recent examples) or ecumenical Sunni Islamist dictatorships (Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, et al.) should be viewed in this context. I will be quite honest and say that I don't see Iran abandoning either those goals or current means employed to achieve them under the current regime.

3. The destruction of Israel. If any kind of moderate voice has emerged inside the Iranian hierarchy with respect to Israel, I don't see it. Even Khatami, who is regularly championed as the most moderate voice within the regime, regularly champions Hezbollah and calls for the annihilation of Israel. There is even a holiday, Qods Day, specifically crafted to memoralize these kinds of sick sentiments among the general population. One can argue how much that approach has worked, but the Qods Day festivities certainly reflect the opinions of the ruling class of the regime.

4. Eviction of the United States from the Middle East. This has been a key part of Iranian foreign policy since Khomeini and can be seen at least in part through #3, as the US is regarded as the force that ensures Israel's security. The successful eviction of US troops from Lebanon in the 1980s in addition to the earlier embassy seizure was viewed by the Iranian hierarchy as a sign that such an outcome is possible, provided enough casualties are inflicted against the US. That the sheer brutality of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s and the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in that conflict were not enough to stem the ambitions of the Iranian leadership in this respect should tell you something right there about the character of the regime.

5. The elimination of the An Najaf school of Shi'ism as a rival to Qom. This is going to be another non-negotiable point with respect to the mullahs - they are not going to allow Sistani or anyone else who rejects Khomeini's velayet-e-faqih to achieve a position of prominence in An Najaf to rival that of the regime ayatollahs based in Qom. By their very existence, people like Sistani pose what the Iranians regard as an unacceptable threat to the legitimacy of the regime. That stance simply isn't going to change, nevermind whether or not we can persuade the mullahs to ditch their nuclear program.

There are others I could list, but these are more than enough to I think illustrate the character of the people that we are or would be dealing with here. So even we by some act of God (since that's what it's going to take at this point) persuade them to ditch or actually suspend their nuclear program, they are not going to alter any of the other issues we have with respect to Iran and all we'll basically be doing is preventing them from adding a new item to our list of worries. That's all well and good as far as it goes, but I don't see that doing much to stop Iran from engaging in the kind of behavior that there is now a perponderance of credible evidence that it is doing with respect to Iraq.

Engagement Can Be Shown To Have Failed ...

I will now share two names with you that you may not have heard anywhere else - Amer Azizi and Mustafa Setmariam Nasar. They are senior Moroccan and Syrian al-Qaeda representatives respectfully, with Azizi being the top leader of the Moroccan Salafi Jihad and Nasar being the head of al-Qaeda's Syrian contingent. Between the two of them and a number of other al-Qaeda leaders, they masterminded the 3/11 bombings in Madrid that left hundreds dead.

And today, despite the election of Zapatero and Spain's excellent economic ties with Iran, both men are being harbored by the elite Qods Force of the IRGC. And while intelligent individuals like Judge Garzon appear to have grasped the current extent of the threat posed by the al-Qaeda leadership based in Iran, such clear-headed views appear to be lacking in the upper echelons of the Spanish government. The same can be said for any number of other European governments, including the "Big 3" that most recently presided over the Iranian uranium enrichment freeze or any number of other European states. That Iran appears to have made no effort whatsoever to curtail the activities of Qods Force given its documented patronage of senior al-Qaeda figures would seem to suggest that all the European diplomacy, economic ties, and apologetics for the mullahs has done one drop of good as far as discouraging them from allowing their guests to plan and amount mass casualty terrorist attacks, even against European soil. If such things do not prevent a government or hard-line elements within it or whatever else you want to call them from sponsoring attacks against supposedly "friendly" nations like Spain, then what in God's name are they good for?

As for claims that the Iranians were helpful with respect to the war in Afghanistan, I believe I've written on that before. They helped us against the Taliban because it furthered their regional ambitions to do so, but they also fielded Hekmatyar against us and have taken the place of the former Afghan regime in serving as al-Qaeda's patrons.

One of the most recent under-reported stories was the recent closure of an al-Qaeda website containing audiotaped speeches, some of them fairly recent, from Suleiman Abu Ghaith, al-Qaeda's official spokesman who is, per the government of his former homeland of Kuwait, currently present inside Iran. He has been there since at least early 2002, yet his speeches referenced events from at least mid-2003 onwards. If he is in custody and not hosted as the Iranians claim, then why are his rants being regularly posted on the internet? If such privileges are not granted to imprisoned students and dissidents, why then are they being granted to a "detained" international terrorist?

Enough already.

The Adventures of Chester

The Future of the Iranian Nuclear Program, Part IV

[See Part I, Part II, Part III]

This part of the Iran series will consist of reactions to reader comments. The original plan was to cover in Part IV each of the military options mentioned in Part III. But responding to reader comments will foster lively discussion. We'll still cover each military option in-depth, and we'll still look at the hand that the Iranians hold as well. All in good time.

We asked for comments from readers in Part III and received 30 comments here on the blog and a couple of dozen more via email. All were great contributions.

Some general observations:

Many readers were very pro-spec ops use. Special operations forces are a powerful asset and we should all be glad that they are on our side. But they are not a pancea for our current dilemma. If a military campaign does kick off, special operations troops will surely be heavily involved, but they won't be the only ground forces. The Afghanistan campaign may have looked like nothing but special forces with a smattering of conventional troops, but Iran is quite a different situation. In Afghanistan, the country had been in a civil war for several years. The Northern Alliance was a veteran military force, regardless of their sophistication or training. All the US had to do was give them some guidance, and integrate their use with the combined arms power of air assets and they were able to roll right over the Taliban.

In Iran, on the contrary, while there are democracy movements, and opposition to the government is supposedly high, there is no organized military force that Green Berets could join and co-opt or assist. Depending on how bad the police state really is, there may be little or no political organization amongst the opposition either. Training an opposition force would probably take months -- and would be hard to keep under wraps.

Several readers also took the route of covert action, wherein the CIA in some way would undermine the government and support the opposition. While this is entirely plausible, there are many issues with pulling it off. First, this is a long-term strategy. If the CIA has been mixing things up, building relationships, gaining footholds and whatnot for the past 3 or so years, then perhaps an option like this could work -- and even then as part of some larger military campaign. But if we're going to ask the CIA to overthrow the Iranian regime and they are starting from scratch tomorrow, it's just not going to happen within the time frame that we've established for ourselves (12-18 months). I think it best to completely discount the possibility that the CIA could engineer a coup, plan for something else entirely, and then if they do pull it off, it'll just be a bonus for all of us.

Other readers mentioned the idea of sabotaging the nuclear sites somehow. This is an excellent idea, but many of the above-mentioned caveats about CIA action still apply. Before the first Gulf War, the CIA managed to have a virus installed on a large printer that was destined to be shipped to Iraq via Jordan and used in Iraq's air-defense system. The virus was then triggered somehow and made the air-defense network go haywire right as our F-117s were beginnng to hit Baghdad. An excellent example of sabotage --but this meant: infiltrating the networks of arms dealers and computer companies who would sell this type of equipment, making sure that it would be used, getting the virus right, etc, etc, etc. "Keep it simple stupid" applies to everything you are doing against an enemy with an independent will, and precise acts of covert sabotage have many, many key points at which they can fail if just one thing goes wrong.

Other readers mentioned the possibility of new bunker-buster weapons that are still classified. This is entirely possible. Every time I hear Bush talk about the need for a smaller bunker-busting nuke, I keep hoping that we've already built one and he's just getting us ready for its debut. Still though, best to discount this, and assume we don't have anything like it. [Whatever happened to the AGM-154A Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)? Perhaps someone out there could answer. Still not a total solution though.]

One reader pointed out that Iran has an elected government, and that it is just undermined by the religious clerics. We could remove the religous aspects of the government and let the elected government remain. This could be one way to skin this cat, but what is happening to the nuke sites and materials while we're doing it? And would a new Iranian government composed of many of the same folks totally give up nuke development? This option would have to be employed with others. Good point though.

Some final thoughts, not in reaction to any particular readers comments, but inspired by them:

In Iraq, there were Sensitive Site Exploration teams, whose job was to occupy and examine all manner of suspected Iraqi WMD facilities. But they were too little too late. Perhaps if they had had both strategic and tactical surprise, they would have found more. As it was, whatever had been there had been moved by the time they arrived. Sure there was some evidence of a weapons program, but all the sexy headline-making stuff was gone.

I think the keys pieces to this puzzle are going to be the answers to three questions:

What facilities of the nuclear program need just plain old destruction? That is, once hit, they are useless.

What are the key components of the program that cannot be allowed to be moved elsewhere or slipped into the hands of another country or a terrorist group? Where are these components? Like enriched uranium? Seems that these will need more than just bombing -- they'll need to be physically captured, and possibly transported back to the US for safeguarding.

Can the US act with strategic surprise? If our blow is telegraphed, the Iranians will have time to mitigate the effects of our strike by moving equipment, possibly giving nuclear materials to terrorists, or to have an on-call counterattack with their cruise missiles at the ready, etc. So, it seems whatever the US is to do must be done with little or no warning to keep the Iranians off balance. Strategic surprise is incredibly difficult in a democracy . . . and as I've said before, when it comes to large-scale troop movements, you cannot hide the logistics . . .

Completely thinking out loud now . . .

If our goal is to bomb 300-500 targets over a period of a week, you could precede that campaign by seizing the three or four top-priority sites, where the nuclear material is, with a relatively small number of US troops -- a MEU or two, a large special forces footprint and maybe the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne. I bet security at the various sites is not that great. Underground sites would be more difficult to seize . . . a troop size that small would have to be in and out pretty fast too, and have massive air cover in addition to the bombing campaign . . .

Part V will be later this week.

Richard Cohen

How to Defuse Iran

[Excerpt]

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, November 23, 2004; Page A29

If you ask an American why he keeps a gun, he'll say it's a dangerous world out there. If you ask the average Iranian why his country should have a nuclear weapon, he'll tell you the same thing. The difference between your average American and your average Iranian is that the former, while hardly crazy, is overreacting a bit, while the average Iranian is, as the Brits might say, spot on. If ever a country could use a nuclear arsenal, it is Iran.

This is not an endorsement of Iran's reputed and deeply suspected effort to go nuclear. It is merely an attempt to show that the country President Bush once cited as a card-carrying member of the "axis of evil" is, while somewhat evil, actually being totally rational. For starters, it is surrounded by nations that have at one time or another been enemies -- some of which have nuclear weapons.

Take Russia. It is now on friendly terms with Iran and an important trading partner, but at the end of World War II, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin had to be pressured into withdrawing from the northern part of the country. At the moment Russian designs on Iran seem both unlikely and preposterous, but what happened once could happen again -- or so an Iranian might argue.

To the east is Pakistan, a certified member of the nuclear club. Iranians may wonder why the Pakistanis can have a bomb and they cannot. It is a question without an answer. Farther afield is Israel, which no one in his right mind would consider a mortal threat to Iran. But Iran is an Islamic (Shiite) theocracy, and it is engaged in a struggle with Israel that makes as much sense from Iran's point of view as did, say, the American effort to rid the world of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. In its own way, every country is a bit nuts.

Then, to the west, is Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein, it invaded Iran in 1980 and devastated its oil infrastructure. As we have now learned the hard way, Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, but he desperately wanted them -- as might some Iraqi leader of the future. The country is now in the hands of the United States, which has hardly been a mere observer in the region. In 1953 the CIA mounted a coup in which the prime minister, Mohammad Mossadeq, was ousted and the shah, who had prudently fled the country, was restored to his throne. Mossadeq was put under house arrest, but some of his aides, including the foreign minister, were executed. Years later, when the shah was toppled and hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy, it was not entirely an episode without context.

From an Iranian point of view, then, the world is indeed a dangerous place. It must seem all the more dangerous since Bush made Iran one-third of his axis of evil, promulgated a virtual divine right to wage preemptive war -- and made good on both statements by taking out Saddam Hussein. From the Iranian point of view, the world must also seem an illogical place. Why is it okay for Israel to have the bomb or, for that matter, France? The answer is, that's the way it is, booby.

But if that's the way it's going to continue to be, then the United States had better change its approach. It ought, right off, to join with its European allies -- Britain, France and Germany -- in offering Iran a package of goodies to induce it to abandon its nuclear dreams. Instead, Washington has declared itself "agnostic" about these talks, which is hardly a rousing endorsement.

Maybe more important, the Bush administration had better wake up and smell the importance of international organizations and the rule of (international) law. If a country can't trust the law it will, like any American gun owner, hanker for a weapon of its own.

Repeatedly, Iran vows it has no nuclear intentions. "Trust, but verify," I say, echoing Ronald Reagan's echo of Mikhail Gorbachev. But if it turns out that Iran is lying (imagine!), unilateralism will not work. The United States is not about to go into another war, this time with a much larger country where anti-Western sentiment has been a factor since the 19th century -- and the Iranians have to know it. ...

It's Iran.

cohenr@washpost.com

Better hurry and do something to end this regime..tick tock tick tock--Bush won't and can't wait forever

they will be coming iran's way if something can't be done quick

ABC News

U.S., Iran Face Off Over EU Nuclear Draft-Diplomats

Reuters

Nov 23, 2004 — By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States and Iran were headed for a diplomatic showdown at the U.N. nuclear watchdog, with Washington demanding Tehran be threatened with tough action if it resumes atomic work it could use for bombs, diplomats say.

France, Britain and Germany, who spearheaded an EU offer of incentives if Iran halted its uranium enrichment program, circulated a draft resolution that diplomats at the United Nations said was unacceptable to both Washington and Tehran.

The Americans see it as too weak and want to include an "automatic trigger" which makes it clear that resuming any activities related to enrichment — a process of purifying uranium to fuel power plants or make weapons — would spark a referral to the U.N. Security Council and possibly sanctions.

Diplomats said that inclusion of such a clause in a resolution submitted to Thursday's meeting of the U.N. agency would be unacceptable to Tehran and would ruin the Iran-EU deal.

"The Europeans will not allow this," said a Western diplomat close to the backroom talks on the text. "There is an agreement (the EU has) with Iran that must be kept."

The Iranians accuse the Europeans of slipping into the text an indirect trigger mechanism that could give Washington a chance to force the Iranian case out of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and into the hands of the Security Council in New York.

"Iran made strong representations about some parts of the agreement," said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw after meeting his Iranian counterpart Kamal Kharrazi on the sidelines of a conference in Egypt on Iraq.

The text says that it is "essential" that Iran keep all parts of its enrichment program suspended if Iran's case is to be resolved "within the framework of the Agency."

While not a direct threat of a Security Council referral, this wording hints that it could be considered, which makes it troublesome for the Iranians, diplomats said.

"We have 48 hours of hard work to do," a senior British official said about the negotiations taking place in Vienna and between the capitals of the major players on the IAEA's 35-member board of governors.

SHIFT IN U.S. POLICY?

Meanwhile, diplomats said that recent comments by top U.S. officials indicated Washington might be exploring a potential shift in strategy regarding the Iranian nuclear program, which it believes is a front for developing bombs.

"I think there may be some movement in the U.S. toward a softer approach," a diplomat from the European Union told Reuters. "This change would not happen immediately, but there are hints that it is coming."

The likely change would be an attempt to play the "bad cop" role alongside the EU's "good cop" role as the Europeans pressure Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment permanently.

On Monday, Iran said it has kept a promise it made to the European Union last by freezing its entire uranium enrichment program and the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, gave a cautious confirmation.

President Bush reacted to the announcement with mild skepticism. "Let's say, I hope it's true," he said.

European diplomats also said they noticed that Bush acknowledged the possibility the EU initiative might work.

"It looks like there is some progress, but to determine whether or not the progress is real there must be verification. We look forward to seeing that verification," Bush said.

ElBaradei said he hoped to report to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors meeting on Thursday that IAEA inspectors on the ground in Iran had verified the suspension of the entire program.

If verified, Iran will likely escape a Security Council referral — as long as it does not resume enrichment work.

Iran made a similar promise in October 2003 but never fully suspended its enrichment program.

(Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt)

US seeking "automatic trigger" in Agreement

ABC News

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/

"If you ask the average Iranian why his country should have a nuclear weapon, he'll tell you the same thing."

Really?

"...while somewhat evil,..."?

Somewhat?

"the United States had better change its approach. It ought, right off, to join with its European allies..."

? Who is this guy?

Exclusive

Powell Dismisses Dinner Diplomacy with Iran

Sec. of State Says U.S.-Iran Diplomacy Could Happen 'In Due Course'

Secretary of State Colin Powell says U.S. "prodding" has brought international attention to Iran's weapons program. (ABC News)

Nov. 23, 2004 — Nov. 23, 2004 — In his first broadcast interview since announcing his resignation from President Bush's Cabinet last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to ABC News' Jonathan Karl while visiting Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, for an international conference on Iraq.

Watch more of the interview tonight on World News Tonight with Peter Jennings at 6:30 p.m. ET.

Powell told Karl about an unexpected seating arrangement at a conference dinner, which positioned Powell next to his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharrazi.

"We just happened to be seated next to each other at the instigation, I suspect, of our Egyptian hosts, and we made polite dinner conversation," Powell said.

Last week, Powell told reporters that the United States had intelligence that Iran was working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon.

That topic, said U.S. officials, was not discussed during dinner, which Powell described as "very pleasant."

Powell said he arrived at the dinner a few minutes late, saw his place setting and sat down, previously unaware of the seating plan.

"That was fine by me," said Powell. "We shook hands and enjoyed dinner and exchanged polite conversation."

Powell, who previously dismissed the notion of writing a book about his experiences as secretary of state, now tells ABC News it might be something he would consider, although he hasn't approached any publishers.

Asked if it was time for the United States to renew diplomatic ties with Iran after a near 25-year rift, Powell left open the possibility, saying it could happen "in due course."

Conference on pro-Islamic regime lobbies in the US on 11/28

SMCCDI (Public Announcement)
Nov 28, 2004

The Movement is organizing a meeting focused on the pro-Islamic regime lobbies and those promoting the establishment of 'dialogue' between the unpopular and illegitimate Islamic republic regime and the US Administration.

This meeting will be held in Los Angeles (California).

Several speakers will explain the current geopolitical situation and how controversial groups and individuals are pushing their hidden agenda to save the Mullhacracy.

On Sunday November 28, 2004

From 10:00 AM till 12:30 PM

At the "West End" , West Side 2 Building, 2nd Floor, Room C.

Located at 10800 W. Pico Blvd. LA, CA 90064

(Corner of Westwood and Pico by Barnes & Nobles)

Contact: (214) 906-8181

Diplomats: U.S., Iran Face Off Over EU Nuclear Draft

Tue Nov 23, 2004 02:29 PM ET

By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States and Iran were headed for a diplomatic showdown at the U.N. nuclear watchdog, with Washington demanding Tehran be threatened with tough action if it resumes atomic work it could use for bombs, diplomats say.

France, Britain and Germany, who spearheaded an EU offer of incentives if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program, circulated a draft resolution that diplomats at the United Nations said was unacceptable to both Washington and Tehran.

Washington sees it as too weak and wants to include an "automatic trigger" which makes it clear that resuming any activities related to enrichment -- a process of purifying uranium to fuel power plants or make weapons -- would spark a referral to the U.N. Security Council and possibly sanctions.

"It is still just in the eyes of the Iranians, a suspension," Secretary of State Colin Powell told CNN television. "A suspension means they can turn it back on at any time. We want it turned off permanently."

But Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told reporters the suspension would remain in place only long enough to provide assurances that Tehran was not diverting to a bomb program and would be reviewed after three months.

"Suspension is a voluntary action. As long as it is leading to ... ensuring the other side that Iran is not going to divert to nuclear weapons, it will be continued," he told reporters.

Diplomats said including an "automatic trigger" clause in a resolution submitted to Thursday's meeting of the U.N. agency would be unacceptable to Tehran and would ruin the Iran-EU deal.

"The Europeans will not allow this," said a Western diplomat close to the backroom talks on the text. "There is an agreement (the EU has) with Iran that must be kept."

INDIRECT TRIGGER

The Iranians accuse the Europeans of slipping into the text an indirect trigger mechanism that gives Washington a chance to force the Iranian case out of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and into the hands of the Security Council in New York.

"Iran made strong representations about some parts of the agreement," said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw after meeting his Iranian counterpart Kharrazi on the sidelines of a conference in Egypt on Iraq.

The text says it is "essential" that Iran keep all parts of its enrichment program suspended if Iran's case is to be resolved "within the framework of the Agency."

While not a direct threat of a Security Council referral, this wording hints that it could be considered, which makes it troublesome for some board members and Iran, diplomats said.

The United States accuses Iran of using its nuclear power program as a front to build a bomb. Tehran rejects this claim.

"We are opposed to any trigger, direct or indirect, that would send a country to the Security Council over a confidence building measure," Malaysian ambassador to the U.N. in Vienna, Hussein Haniff, told reporters on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which holds a third of the 35 IAEA board seats.

Haniff said a clause in the draft calling on Iran to give "unrestricted access" to the IAEA was illegal and should be explicitly limited to nuclear sites declared under the IAEA's Additional Protocol permitting short-notice inspections.

On Monday, Iran said it has kept a promise it made to the European Union last week by freezing its entire uranium enrichment program and the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, gave a cautious confirmation.

Iran made a similar promise in October 2003 but never fully suspended its enrichment program.

Meanwhile the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a group of Iranian exiles who revealed in August 2002 that Tehran was concealing a uranium enrichment plant and other sites from U.N. inspectors, called on the IAEA to inspect two sites in Tehran which the NCRI says are secret enrichment plants.

"The clerical regime should not be given a chance to transfer or conceal equipment and materials or sanitize the sites," the statement said.

On Monday, ElBaradei said his inspectors would only follow up "credible information" and that his experts were trying to determine whether the new NCRI claims were credible. (Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers and Amil Khan in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt)

This is the longest 34 post thread in history.

Powell: U.S. Open to Eventually Restoring Ties with Iran

By Saul Hudson

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) - Outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) signaled on Tuesday Washington was open to one day re-establishing diplomatic ties with Iran after the countries held their most sustained, high-level contact in years.

Powell, who spoke with his Iranian counterpart on Monday at an international conference dinner, said the United States could "in due course" hold direct talks and review relations if Tehran addressed concerns over its terrorism links and nuclear programs.

The remarks were sure to fuel speculation over the prospects for a thaw in relations as the administration of President Bush (news - web sites) debates whether to engage or confront a country it bracketed in "an axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and pre-war Iraq (news - web sites).

Asked if the United States could one day consider restoring ties with Iran, Powell, a sometimes lonesome dove in Bush's cabinet, said: "In due course."

"It is not in the best interests of international relations for there to be permanent enmity or animosity between two states," he said in an interview with U.S. television network ABC.

Powell's appeasing tone came after Iran on Monday met international demands to suspending uranium enrichment activities, which in part have motivated U.S. accusations Tehran is pursuing a nuclear bomb.

While diplomats and political analysts do not expect a breakthrough anytime soon, Powell may have raised hope for the start of a rapprochement with a country that regards the United States as the "Great Satan."

Some European diplomats acknowledge their own negotiations to persuade Iran to give up sensitive nuclear work will only succeed if Washington gets involved.

In recent years, the United States and Iran have quietly held occasional, low-level talks, under international auspices, about Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Powell said he was not predicting formal U.S.-Iranian talks, but echoed his earlier phrase. "In due course, it might turn out to be the case," he said.

"But conditions have to be present before you can simply walk away from not only the 25-year history, but current behavior," the top U.S. diplomat said, alleging Iran supports Islamic militant groups and has a secret nuclear arms program.

DINNER DIPLOMACY

Powell, whom Iran dismissed as a lame duck with no policymaking clout, sat alongside Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi on Monday night. According to both sides, they made small talk in English without touching on substantive diplomatic issues such as the nuclear crisis.

The two men had previously shared little more than a handshake in 2001. But neither objected to the symbolic seating arranged by Egypt, the host of the conference on Iraq.

And both countries recognize a lasting solution to some of their most intractable problems can only be achieved by puncturing their wall of mutual mistrust.

But tentative exchanges and dialogues have been initiated on several occasions in recent years only to collapse amid recriminations and accusations.

And Washington and Tehran strived to downplay Monday's "dinner diplomacy."

Powell said of the encounter: "There's no reason to be discourteous, even though sometimes you disagree about positions."

Canada appoints new ambassador to Iran

By ALLISON DUNFIELD
Globe and Mail Update

Canada has appointed a new ambassador to Iran and is making renewed efforts to pursue the Zahra Kazemi case, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew announced Tuesday.

Mr. Pettigrew appointed Gordon Venner, who has worked in the Department of External Affairs and International Trade since 1989 in various capacities, as Canada's new ambassador to Iran.

Mr. Venner replaces former ambassador Philip MacKinnon, who was withdrawn in July over the Canadian government's frustration with the Iranian justice system regarding the case of Ms. Kazemi.

The 54-year-old photojournalist died on July 10, 2003 in Tehran. An Iranian-born photographer who also had Canadian citizenship, she was beaten to death after being arrested for taking photos of protesters outside a Tehran prison.

Mr. Pettigrew said the new appointment means Canada will resume its full diplomatic presence in Iran, and Mr. Venner will try to make progress on the Kazemi case.

"Justice denied is offensive to all Canadians. This case will be pursued energetically."

The government was frustrated by efforts by the country's hard-line judiciary to censor news accounts of the trial of an intelligence officer accused of killing the Montreal woman. Although the trial was initially open to Canadian ambassador Philip MacKinnon and other foreign observers, they were eventually not allowed in.

The Iranian judiciary later said the Montreal photographer died when she fell on the ground and hit her head, and a Tehran court acquitted the intelligence agent.

The case has stalled since then, although Ms. Kazemi's son, Stephan Hachemi, has taken up his mother's cause and has been fighting to get her body returned to Canada and to have those responsible charged for their actions.

The case has strained relations between Canada and Iran.

Mr. Pettigrew said appointing Mr. Venner, formerly the director of the international economic relations and summits division at the European Union Division in Ottawa, will hopefully improve communications between the two countries.He added: "Our ambassador will be responsible for representing Canada's views on Iran's nuclear program at a time when Canada chairs the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Mr. Venner will also advocate for Canada's position on the human-rights situation in Iran, Mr. Pettigrew said.

Meanwhile, Mr. MacKinnon, the former ambassador, was named the Canadian ambassador to Egypt in September.Conservative Party foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day said Mr. Venner's appointment and return to Iran must have a clear purpose.

"The Iranian regime should understand in no uncertain terms that Canada's Ambassador is returning with a mandate to secure clear steps of action on two fronts; resolving the Zahra Kazemi case and the abandoning of the uranium enrichment program," said Mr. Day.

This thread is now closed.

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