Barak Cites Different Judgment With US on Iran

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak cited Different judgment with U.S. on Iran during a lecture at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on Friday.

(...) there’s a difference in perspective and judgement, in our internal clocks. Some in the U.S. see a world with a nuclear Pakistan, India, North Korea …. From this corner of the world (Washington), [perhaps] it doesn’t change the equation if Iran goes nuclear.
For Israel it does change the equation. It would be a tipping point.

Mousavi calls 22 Bahman celebrations 'engineered'

Prolific Twitter user and citizen journalist, Persianbanoo has tweeted an English translation of much of what Mousavi said in an interview with Kalameh today. Below is a slightly edited version of the tweets put into one paragraph by A prominent Iranian activist, via Iran News Now.

Karoubi and I have decided, based on Article 27 of the Constitution, to repeat once again our request for a permit for a march. Our nation wants a progressive foreign policy and not a hostile, unfriendly foreign policy. Our nation wants that, under pretense of privatization, industries are not controlled by government entities and Sepah [Islamic Revolutionary Guards]. Our nation wants that our teachers and labor forces are not beaten or attacked for asking for their rights. Our nation wants that women don’t become subjects of accusations and attacks for wanting their equal rights. Our nation wants that the voices of all are heard from the national media and not only the voices of the few. Our nation does not like to be divided into two: groups: “God’s Party” and “Devil’s Party”. Our nation does not like their letters, text messages and phone conversations to be monitored. Our nation does not like their freedom to be limited, their constitution to be ignored. Our nation does not like their newspapers to be banned. Our nation does not like daily instructions [by the government] of what is allowed to be written about, or talked about. The desires of our nation are also the desires of the Green Movement. These facts should be distributed among the people of our nation by the Green Movement by all possible means. What we are asking for is both Islamic and Constitutionnal. Our requests are not against Shiria laws but they have resulted in shootings, murders and imprisonments. Our requests are not un-nationalistic and are not against the establishment, they are the people’s rights. Pursuing freedom, and human rights, and removing discrimination, and accepting differing view points R not illegal

Agence France Presse and the Los Angeles Times have cited Mir Hossein Mousavi’s intervie.

Is Iran inviting a strike?

To the surprise of international inspectors, analysts and policy makers, Iran moved, almost two weeks ago, nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched nuclear fuel to an above-ground plant. The move is way puzziling and triggers the question if Iran is eventually inviting a strike. By design -- or screw up, the New York Times asks:

The strangest of the speculations — but the one that is being talked about most — is that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is inviting an attack to unify the country after eight months of street demonstrations that have pitted millions of Iranians against their government. As one senior European diplomat noted Thursday, an Israeli military strike might be the “best thing” for Iran’s leadership, because it would bring Iranians together against a national enemy.

It would offer an excuse some Iranians might sorely want to throw out the nuclear inspectors and renounce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That would leave Iran in the position that North Korea is in: free to manufacture fuel or bombs without inspectors to blow the whistle.

Others, including some officials in the White House, say they do not buy that theory. Iran has worked too hard to let its supply be destroyed, they argue. “I really doubt they are taunting the Israelis to hit them,” said Kenneth Pollack, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who recently ran a daylong simulation of what would happen after an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “It would be humiliating for the Iranian regime,” he said. He speculated that Iran would have to retaliate, and “the ensuing confrontation would go in directions no one can really predict.”

Mr. Pollack numbers among those who suspect another explanation: brinkmanship. The Iranians have made clear that they do not like the terms their own negotiators came home with for swapping their nuclear fuel for specialized fuel for the medical reactor. By moving their fuel supply to the enrichment plant, they are essentially threatening to turn it all to near-bomb-grade fuel — and perhaps force the United States to reopen negotiations.

But the simplest explanation, that the Iranians had no choice, has its proponents. The fuel is stored in one big, specialized cask. When someone ordered that the fuel begin being fed into the giant centrifuges for further enrichment, engineers moved it to the only spot available — the exposed plant. Or, as one American intelligence official said, “You can’t dismiss the possibility that this is a screw-up."

Iran Contrarians: Ahmadinejad’s Washington power couple

Michael Crowley joins the Leverett's bash party. Below is his take:

Say what you want about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but “he knows how to work a room.” So claims Flynt Leverett, the contrarian Iran analyst who, with his wife Hillary Mann Leverett, paid a visit to the Iranian president in New York City last fall. During the sit-down at Manhattan’s InterContinental Barclay hotel with a group of invited academics, foreign policy professionals, and other Iranophiles, the Leveretts marveled at Ahmadinejad’s attention to detail as the Iranian took copious notes and strove to pronounce their unfamiliar names correctly. “He addresses every person by name. He made a serious effort to address everyone’s issue,” Flynt says. “It was really striking, the retail politics aspect.”

As former Bush White House officials, the Leveretts might seem unlikely company for the diminutive tyrant. But Ahmadinejad has reason to admire the married Middle East analysts. They are, after all, the most prominent voices in the U.S. media arguing that he was legitimately reelected last June, and that the opposition Green Movement is a flash in the pan. “There is no revolution afoot in Iran, and the social base of this movement is not growing; it is, in fact, shrinking,” Flynt recently said on PBS’s “NewsHour.” He has made his case everywhere from msnbc to NPR to The New York Times op-ed page, where he and his wife have made three shared appearances since late May.

To the Leveretts, Ahmadinejad’s Bill Clinton-like personal touch underscores their argument that, far from a thug repressing his people, he is, in fact, a charming leader with broad Iranian support--and one whose true nature the United States fails to understand. And, in any case, they say, moral indignation over his regime’s character distracts us from clear strategic thinking. Both economic sanctions and the Green Movement will fail to contain Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions. America’s only choice is to engage Iran, nuclear bomb or no. For that, they have earned the enmity of former friends and colleagues--and even drawn death threats. “We are portrayed as un-American, stooges of the regime,” complains Hillary.

But it’s not the Leveretts’ ultra-realist policy views that are so discomfiting. It is the sense that they cross a line into making apologies for the loathsome Ahmadinejad. And that makes for one of Washington’s most intriguing mysteries: How did two ex-Bush aides become the Iranian regime’s biggest intellectual defenders?

In the fall of 2001, Hillary Mann saw Flynt deliver a speech on the Arab-Israeli peace process and fell for him. Flynt was then a CIA officer with a Princeton Ph.D., on assignment to the State Department’s policy planning staff. Hillary, nearly ten years his junior at 33, was a Brandeis and Harvard law graduate working at the United Nations. When Flynt asked Hillary to lunch, he told the Times’ “Vows” column, “there was no plausible deniability” it was a date. By the time the two married in February 2003, they were both working on Bush’s National Security Council (he as director for the Middle East, she as director for Iran and Afghanistan), planning their wedding during breaks from planning the Iraq war. “I find it a bit hard to think of the Bush White House as the Love Boat,” cracked their best man, Richard Haass, then a senior State Department official, in his toast.

The Bush White House may have brought them together, but the couple soon turned against it. Flynt says he left his job the month after his wedding out of disillusionment with Bush’s hawkish Middle East policies. Hillary departed soon after, spending several months at the State Department before leaving government. (One former White House official says that Flynt didn’t quit but was fired for bureaucratic incompetence, including an office so unkempt that Condoleezza Rice herself was appalled. While admitting that he keeps “a messy desk,” Flynt denies this account.) Flynt went on to advise John Kerry’s presidential campaign and worked a stint at the Brookings Institution. In 2006, Hillary formed the consulting firm Stratega, which advises corporate clients on Middle Eastern politics.

By then, the Leveretts had begun publicly bashing Bush’s Iran policy--specifically his rejection of a May 2003 memo from a mid-level Iranian diplomat offering comprehensive talks with the United States that would include Iran’s nuclear program. Cheneyite hawks certainly had no interest in such a deal, but even former Secretary of State Colin Powell has cast doubt on whether the offer represented the regime’s true thinking. Still, the media thrilled to the idea that a bellicose Bush had rejected talks. When the Leveretts sought to publish a New York Times op-ed on the subject in December 2006, the White House insisted on censoring it, and the Times theatrically published the heavily redacted version anyway. An Esquire profile soon cast the Leveretts as heroic dissidents standing athwart another blind march to war. The couple’s new cachet drew influential Washingtonians to salon dinners they began holding at their home in suburban McLean, Virginia.

The Leveretts voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but, despite his efforts to broker a dialogue with Tehran, they found his attempts lacking and soon turned on him as well. By last spring, they were warning that Obama had already “lost” Iran, complaining that he had not halted Bush-era covert programs against Iran’s nuclear program. They also complained that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Iran point man Dennis Ross were too hawkish. “The administration’s approach to Iran degenerates into an only slightly prettified version of George W. Bush’s approach,” they wrote in a May 24 piece for the Times, one that noticeably echoed Tehran’s position. And then came the June 12 Iranian election.

In the days after the election, many foreign observers were sure it had been rigged. The votes had been counted suspiciously quickly, and Ahmadinejad’s alleged 63 percent to 34 percent margin of victory struck many Iran experts as implausible given the huge crowds supporting his challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi. But, writing in Politico, the Leveretts argued against “wishful thinking.” “Ahmadinejad won. get over it,” huffed their headline. In early January, they took to the Times again to dismiss the significance of large anti-Ahmadinejad protests that had occurred the week before, arguing that pro-government crowds had been larger and that Mousavi had become “increasingly marginalized.”

It’s not obvious that this analysis is wrong--especially in the wake of disappointing Green turnout last week on the anniversary of the 1979 Iranian revolution--although, in a state willing to beat, arrest, and even kill protesters, gauging the popular mood is never simple. But the Leveretts’ argument doesn’t stop with an assessment of Iranian opinion. That was clear when I met with them at the New America Foundation, where Flynt is a fellow. (He also teaches at Penn State University.) Now 51, Flynt is tall, with close-cut gray hair, a salt-and-pepper goatee, and the fastidious manner common to national security professionals--a contrast to his chatty wife, now 42. I asked the Leveretts why, if Ahmadinejad enjoys such broad support, his regime has cracked down so brutally. In fact, they told me, Ahmadinejad has shown restraint. “It’s become politically incorrect and impossible to say it, but ... this government hasn’t even begun to deploy the force it’s capable of using,” says Hillary. (Even the videotaped shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan on a Tehran street was an “exceptional” and “isolated” case, she says.) “There’s a slightly flippant counter-response,” Flynt says with a wry grin. “Why did the Nixon campaign order the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate building when it was clear Nixon was going to win reelection by a landslide?” The Leveretts also sought to account for Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel as shrewd regional politics. “It does get to him when he’s described to the outside world as anti-Semitic. He would describe himself as anti-Zionist,” Flynt explains. “Resistance to Israel is an important theme to him. ... If it’s crazy, it’s crazy like a fox.”

The Leveretts are not just isolated politically, but also personally. After Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a recent Newsweek essay urging a U.S. push for regime change in Iran, the Leveretts posted a contemptuous online response that mocked their best man’s involvement in planning the Iraq war. Haass, who declined to comment, is said to have been furious. Another person who once considered himself a good friend of the couple now says he’s lost touch with them in part due to their policy views. And, when asked about erstwhile dinner guest Karim Sadjadpour, a prominent Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Flynt acknowledges, “Once upon a time, we were closer to him than we are now. There are other people like that.” The Obama administration is also baffled at how a couple that once cheered it on now accuses it of “diplomatic incompetence.” “I hear from very senior people in the administration who say, ‘What are Flynt and Hillary doing?’” says New America’s Steven Clemons. Meanwhile, the Leveretts say they have been sent blood-spattered photographs of a dead Neda Soltan bearing the message: This should be you.

Some former friends and colleagues say the Leveretts seem to have changed. Flynt voted for Bush in 2000 and says he didn’t oppose the Iraq war “on principle”--although he has been accused of softness on Middle Eastern strongmen before, including in a book he wrote about Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. His wife’s resumé is more surprising. Hillary, who volunteers that she is Jewish, studied at Tel Aviv University and worked briefly at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. At the latter, she denounced efforts in 1997 to engage Iran’s then-relatively moderate leadership and called for an economic crackdown against the country. “This is not the Hillary we remember,” says one ex-Bush White House official.

What happened? Some critics accuse the Leveretts of becoming corporate shills. Their salon dinners, for instance, have included executives from oil companies that have done business in Iran, including Norway-based Statoil and French Total. The Leveretts firmly deny that they are peddling access or trying to affect policy for corporate gain. Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation, says he recently conducted a review of their business ties and is “entirely satisfied there is no conflict. ... The idea that their ideas are compromised is without foundation.”

Perhaps the Leveretts were transformed by what they saw as Bush’s blown opportunity to deal with Iran. Hillary says her dealings with Iranian diplomats as a Bush White House aide at the start of the Afghanistan war made her understand Tehran’s willingness to engage. “It seems that the Leveretts are almost frozen in time circa 2003 on this,” says Tufts University professor Daniel Drezner. The Leveretts have also come to accept the realist critique that Israel occupies too great a role in America’s foreign policy calculus; Flynt clashed with fellow Bush officials about what peace-process concessions Israel should be asked to make, for instance. “For a lot of pro-Israel groups, these [views of Iran] are non-starters,” he says.

Or perhaps, on some level, they have actually grown to admire Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In our meeting, I pressed them to say just how they feel about the Iranian leader. Geopolitics aside, did they consider him a despicable human being? “I think he’s actually a quite intelligent man,” Flynt replied. “I think he also has really extraordinary political skills.” “[T]he idea that he’s stupid or doesn’t understand retail politics is also pretty divorced from reality,” Hillary added. But that wasn’t the question.

Michael Crowley is a senior editor of The New Republic.

This article has been slightly updated from the print version.

Karroubi: This regime is worse than the Shah’s

In an interview with Italy’s Corriere della Sera, first published in Italian in 22 February, Mehdi Karroubi said that the Shah's regime didn't behave as Khamenei's with the people. Read the English version in full:

Mehdi Karroubi, 73-year-old cleric and politician, has become a leader of the protests against the Iranian regime. A disciple of Khomeini, since the age of 24 he fought at his side against the Shah (and paid with six years in prison) in order to create the Islamic Republic. Since 1979, he has had relevant roles, such as speaker of the Parliament. He challenged Ahmadinejad for the presidency in 2005 and again in 2009. Both times he accused the authorities of fraud during the elections. During the last street protests in Iran on February 11, one of his sons, Ali, was arrested. He was beaten for hours in a mosque by members of the basiji militia and threatened with rape, before being freed at 11 P.M. A selection of questions and answers from the following interview also appeared in Italian on February 22 in the paper edition of “Corriere della Sera” newspaper.

How is your son now?
«Physically, my son Ali is feeling better. In the first days, his condition was terrible. Now we are worried about his mental state. The damage Ali suffered is a small example of all that is happening to the children of this nation. But the regime is already paying for this».

What happened on February 11?
«The repression was violent, no doubt. There was an unprecedented conflict with the population. This time, the regime didn’t want to allow any gathering of protesters (of the Green Movement, ed.) and it used all its strength: it gathered its forces from all the different governmental organs. They arrested our friends and family members, and they threatened the others. But their mobilization and organization didn’t stop us. I knew how it would end, but I went to demonstrate anyway. I will go again if there will be other demonstrations, even if the outcome is worse than the last one. The newspapers wrote that the people prevented the conspirators (this is how the regime defines Karroubi and Mousavi, ed.) from entering the square. I would like to ask those newspapers, which are controlled by the regime and the government: do you think that ordinary people use tear gas? Do you think ordinary people use metal bars and knives? The masters need to know that these days will pass but their sign will remain».

The events of these months have often been compared to the Revolution of 1979. You compared the violence of the repression to that of the Shah’s time, but you said that his army had shown more restraint. Do you see other similarities between our times and those?
«The Shah’s regime was corrupt at its core, but he didn’t behave like this with the people. What do the armed forces have to do with the election’s results? Why did they treat the people like this on the 22nd of Bahman (in the Persian calendar it corresponds to February 11 ed.)? During the reign of the Shah there were rules; they did not take the people arrested to the mosque to beat them to death even before they appeared in front of the judiciary. These people make arrests without a warrant, beat them and keep them in detention. Not to mention the rest (Karroubi has denounced the rape of the protesters after their arrest, ed.)».

Under what conditions would you be ready to find a compromise with Ahmadinejad and recognise him as the legitimate president of Iran? Do you consider yourself to be a leader of this Green Movement?
«I don’t consider myself the leader of the popular Green Movement. I consider myself a member of this movement and of the reformist movement. My actions aim to a return to the will and the ideals of the people, that is to say to the people’s sovereignty. I don’t have a personal conflict, nor a reason to reach an agreement or make peace with Ahmadinejad. We consider Ahmadinejad’s government an established government that has to answer for its actions, but not a lawful or legitimate government. I am nobody: it’s not up to me to find an agreement or a compromise. It is the people who have to decide whether or not they want a compromise with the government. It is the people who are in conflict with the government, and who do not accept its management of the country. The people don’t agree with the strategy that puts us in conflict with the world taken on by Ahmadinejad, and we are a part of this same people».

You said that chanting slogans against the Supreme Leader and for a secular state is wrong. What slogans should people chant?
«The things should be kept separate. We are not trying to make the regime fall. On the other hand, the Constitution is not a divine revelation and therefore is not unchangeable. But, at the moment, not even this Constitution is applied in this country».

Before the election could you imagine that the Iranian people would go so far in asking for their rights and that their anger would grow so much?
«I did not imagine or foresee that the Iranian regime would go as far as rigging the popular vote as it did. On the other hand, the regime has adopted an obstinate and non conciliatory attitude with the people, which is the cause of the current problems. In the first days (after the elections, ed.), the people said: “Where is my vote?” The people are still the same. So what happened that lead them to adopt the current slogans? The people want healthy elections and to see their votes counted».

As a student of Khomeini, I read that you were extraordinarily absorbed by him. Is he still a model for your actions?
«I loved the Imam and I still love him. Yes, he is a model and an example for me. He was a devout cleric, he had insight and far-sightedness. My love for him increased after his death because of what happened. The Imam lead the country in its most difficult time: the first decade after the Islamic Revolution. The country was at war, prominent figures and other important politicians were killed in attacks and in the war. In that situation, perhaps some special and sometimes excessive measures were taken. I don’t say that he was a perfect model. But actions and decisions have to be evaluated taking the times into account».

What is the worst thing that has been done in the name of the revolution? What were the most joyful moments of the revolution? Why do you still believe in the Islamic Republic?
«The Islamic Republic consists of two concepts: republicanism and Islam. The worst thing is the damage done to both those concepts and principles. I’m not saying that nothing is left anymore, but the damage done is very serious, both to Islam and to the concept of “republicanism” which means “the opinion and the vote of the people”. The Imam said that the final decision is up to the people. He always considered the public opinion and never allowed, even under the worse conditions, ambiguity and lack of clarity during the elections. What was damaged were the promises that we made to the people. The issue is not to make the regime fall, but to reform it. I still believe in the Islamic Republic, but not in this kind of Islamic Republic! The Islamic Republic that we promised the people had the support and the vote of 98% of the population: it was the Islamic Republic of free elections and not of rigged elections. I believe in modern Islam, an Islam full of kindness and affection, not a violent or fanatic Islam».

Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi pledged to reduce the business with Tehran and to support new international sanctions. Do you think these measures would help the opposition in any way? What effects do you think UN sanctions will have on the government and on the people?
«When I was the speaker of the Iranian parliament, the relationship between our parliaments was excellent. My official visit to Italy at that time, and the visit of two presidents of the Italian House to Iran are a sign of the good political relationship between the two countries. Even the letter sent by the presidents of the Italian House and Senate to the chiefs of the Iranian regime regarding the consequences of my (possible ed.) arrest is a demonstration of the good relationship we had at that time. For this, I am grateful to the presidents and to the members of the Italian parliament. But I am absolutely against sanctions; they increase the economic pressure that the people already suffer because of the wrong policies of the government».

Do you think that the Islamic Republic can have a dialogue with the United States?
«We said more than once that the only country we will not have a relationship with is Israel, because this country violated the rights of a people. A fair relationship (with the United States ed.), which is based on reciprocal respect and takes into account the reciprocal rights is desirable. But this government created a peculiar situation and does not allow a return to a relationship with the United States. On one hand, the Iranian government writes to the American government; on the other hand, it uses strong and harsh words and expressions against the American government. Contradictory behaviour does not work in foreign policy».

Viviana Mazza
26 febbraio 2010

Barak says Iran unlikely to launch nuclear strike on Israel

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak raised doubts Friday on the likelihood of an Iranian nuclear strike on his country, during a forum sponsored by Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

I don't think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, (will) drop it in the neighborhood.
They fully understand what might follow. They are radical but not totally crazy.

Russia says no proof Iran working on nuclear weapons

There is no hard proof that Iran is working on nuclear weapons, but Tehran has to clarify some issues on its nuclear program to avoid fresh sanctions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told RIA Novosti.

There is no evidence that Iran has made a decision to produce nuclear weapons.

On Sanctions Lavrov maintained Russia's position which opposes crippling sanctions.

If we go with the sanctions, we’ll not go beyond the goal of our purpose of defending the nonproliferation regime. We don’t want the nonproliferation regime to be used for ... strangling Iran, or taking some steps to deteriorate the situation (and) the living standards of people in Iran

Clinton compares Iran showdown to Cuban missile crisis

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday compared the showdown with Iran over its nuclear program to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. She said:

My reading of what happened with President Kennedy is that it's exactly what he did. It was high-stakes diplomacy. It was pushing hard to get the world community to understand, going to the UN, making a presentation, getting international opinion against the placement of Russian weapons in Cuba, making a deal eventually with the Russians that led to the removal of the weapons.
That is the kind of high-stakes diplomacy that I'm engaged in, that other members of this administration are, because we take very seriously the potential threat from Iran.

Iran sanctions expecyed by late March, early April

The United Nations Security Council is expected to impose additional sanctions on Iran by the end of March or the beginning of April, American officials told their Israeli counterparts at Thursday's strategic dialogue in Jerusalem, Haaretz reported.

The sanctions will not be paralyzing and sweeping, as many would like," a senior Israeli official said. "But they will be firm enough to harm the regime there. Also, a mechanism will be set up to enable additional UN resolutions to be passed swiftly if the Iranians don't change their conduct.

Assad and Ahmadinejad Question US Policy

Iran and Syria's presidents started two days of meetings in Damascus Thursday, and lost no time in issuing more threats against the U.S. and Israel.

Iran President Ahmadinejad said ties between his country and Syria remain "deep" and attacked U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
"The Americans want to dominate the region but they feel Iran and Syria are preventing this," he said. "We tell them that instead of interfering in the region's affairs, to pack their things and leave."
In recent months the Obama administration has launched new efforts to re-engage with the Syrian regime including the re-establishment of an ambassador in Damascus, the first since 2005.

As the pressure mounts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran over its secretive nuclear program, many in Washington hope warmer relations with Syria will drive a wedge between two members of what President George W. Bush once famously dubbed the Axis of Evil.

Thursday's summit in Damascus appears designed to present a united front against such efforts

As usual Israel was also the target of Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric. In recent weeks the region has been abuzz with talk of war, with both Syria and the Lebanese group Hezbollah exchanging threats with Israel.
"If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilation," the Iran president said. "With Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists."
Syrian officials have been issuing increasingly bellicose statements against Israel and has promised to support Hezbollah in the event of conflict, a commitment underscored Thursday by Syria

"We believe we are facing an entity that is capable of aggression at any point, and we are preparing ourselves for any Israeli aggression, be it on a small or large scale," he said.

During his stay in Syria, Ahmadinejad is also expected to hold meetings with leading figures from Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic group Hamas. Both organizations are thought to receive arms and funding from Tehran.

Giant new Israeli drone can reach Iran

A new drone that can remain airborne for more than 24 hours and reach as far as Iran was added to the Israeli air force's arsenal, the military said.
Described by the army as a "technological breakthrough", the Eitan - which means 'strong' in Hebrew - is a Heron-TP type drone with a wingspan of 26 metres, similar to that of the Boeing-737.
It is 24 metres long, weighs 4.5 tonnes and can remain in the air for more than 24 hours, enabling it to fly as far as Iran, Israel's arch-foe.
The drone was built by Israel Aerospace Industries in cooperation with the air force and is equipped with radar, cameras and high-tech electronic equipment including mapping devices.
The drone can reach an altitude of 13,000 metres and carry payloads of about one tonne.
"This aircraft constitutes a very important turning point in the development of unmanned aircraft," Air Force chief General Ido Nehustan was quoted as saying.
-AFP

Petraeus: US to pursue pressure track on Ira:

By Stephanie Griffith (AFP)

WASHINGTON — The United States is raising the stakes in its bid to halt Iran's nuclear program, putting the issue on a "pressure track," top US general David Petraeus said Sunday.

The US and other world powers are drumming up support for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran for its refusal to comply with repeated ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment and agree to a UN-backed nuclear fuel deal.

President Barack Obama had talked about a dual-track approach to dealing with Iran's suspect nuclear activities, involving efforts to engage Iranian leaders backed up by the threat of further sanctions.

"I think that no one at the end of this time can say that the United States and the rest of the world have not given Iran every opportunity to resolve the issues diplomatically," Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said.

"That puts us in a solid foundation now to go on what is termed the pressure track. That's the course on which we are embarked now," he told NBC television's "Meet the Press" program.

Petraeus said the administration intends to "send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have... about Iran's activities in the nuclear program."

Concerns on Iran rose last week when the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, said it suspected that Tehran might already be trying to develop a nuclear warhead.

A US intelligence report in 2007 said Iran halted such research in 2003, but the latest IAEA report gives credence to the belief held by some Western countries that the program continued.

Petraeus suggested that Iran's recent actions were leading US intelligence agencies to update their estimations.

"There is no question that some of the activities have advanced during that time. There is also a new national intelligence estimate being developed by our intelligence community in the United States," he said.

The IAEA also confirmed on Thursday that Tehran had begun enriching uranium to higher levels, theoretically bringing it closer to the levels needed for an atomic bomb.

Iran has previously reached uranium enrichment levels of no more than five percent at its facility at Natanz, in defiance of UN orders for it to cease and despite three rounds of UN sanctions.

Earlier this month, Iran announced it would begin enriching uranium to 20 percent, ostensibly to make the fuel for a research reactor that makes medical radioisotopes.

Iranian officials have dismissed the IAEA report and the country's all-powerful supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denied on Friday that Tehran was seeking atomic weapons.

Last year the IAEA proposed sending Iranian low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad for further enrichment, denying Tehran refining capacity world powers fear could be used to help build an atomic bomb.

The offer would have seen the uranium returned to Iran in a high-grade form for use in a medical research reactor, but Tehran rejected the plan.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that the exchange had to be "simultaneous," an Iranian stance that has led to a deadlock over the deal.

Stand up to rogue regime

Richrad Haass, again, on regime change in Iran. Stand up to rogue regime, he says:

History rarely unfolds smoothly or evenly. Instead, it tends to be punctuated by major developments -- battles, assassinations, breakthroughs -- that have consequences that are felt for years. Thirty-one years after the revolution that ousted the shah and brought Islamic rule to Iran, we are at one of those turning points.

We do not know the degree, direction or pace of change. What we do know, however, is that what happens in Iran will materially affect not just that country but the entire Middle East and beyond.

One future for Iran would be mostly an extension of what already exists. The Iranian regime would continue to brutally repress its domestic opponents, meddle in Iraq and Afghanistan, arm and fund Hezbollah and Hamas and, most important, develop the ability to construct one or more nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

The emergence of such a future would present the world with a stark choice: either acquiesce to an Iran that possesses or could quickly assemble a nuclear device, or launch a preventive military attack designed to destroy much of the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran's emergence as a nuclear-weapons state would almost certainly tempt several of the main Sunni Muslim countries (Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia all come to mind) to embark on a crash program to acquire or develop nuclear arms of their own. A Middle East comprising several nuclear weapons states is a recipe for catastrophe.

An armed attack by the United States, Israel, or both on Iran's nuclear facilities is another possibility. One downside of such a prospect that Iran would likely retaliate against U.S. interests and personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, using Hamas and Hezbollah, against Israel and others. Iran could also interfere with oil traffic, leading to a spike in prices and delivering a further blow to U.S. and global economic recovery.

Moreover, while a preventive strike would delay Iran's nuclear efforts, it would not stop the regime from rebuilding, and it might also create conditions that cause problems for the regime's domestic opponents. But, despite these potential drawbacks, an armed attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will and should remain a distinct possibility given the enormous strategic costs of a nuclear-armed Iran.

It is in part to avoid the difficult choice of either living with a nuclear-armed Iran or attacking it that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany have pursued negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program and place it under international supervision.

Russia and China, which claim to oppose the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, are now being pressed to support new, tough sanctions to increase the odds it does not happen. But if history is a guide, even strong sanctions may not be enough to persuade Iran's rulers to negotiate constructively and accept meaningful constraints on their nuclear activities. These considerations raise the prospect of trying to bring about an alternative future: an Iran with a political leadership that is more moderate at home and abroad, and that forgoes developing a nuclear weapon or anything close to it.

In addition to providing a better life for Iran's 70 million people, political change there would weaken both Hamas and Hezbollah, thereby strengthening the relative position of moderates in the West Bank and Gaza and much improving the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

It is rare in history that such widely different but plausible paths stem from a common point. It is not difficult, however, to determine which one is preferable.

This is why additional measures are called for to improve the prospects for political change that brings about an Iranian government prepared to live in peace with its own people and its neighbors. Such measures include assisting the Green Movement so that it can maintain access to the Internet, introducing additional sanctions aimed at the Revolutionary Guard, and publicly supporting the political and legal rights of the Iranian people.

In today's global world, what happens in Iran is more than Iran's affair. Iran's government has a right to nuclear power to generate electricity, but not to a nuclear weapon. It also has obligations to its neighbors, to the world community -- not to support terrorism, for example -- and to its citizens. The world should not sit idly by as Iran's regime fails to meet these obligations.

Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.

(C) 2010 Project Syndicate

The force needed to contain Iran

Washington Post

By James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh

As Iran relentlessly moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, calls will grow for the United States to think seriously about how to contain Tehran. A preventive attack will not work, some will argue, and could unleash a wave of terrorism that would further imperil Iraq and Afghanistan. Conversely, containment will be held up as a way to deter Tehran without having to resort to military force.

But this view draws a false distinction between containment and force. A preventive attack might not end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Defense Secretary Robert Gates argues that a successful attack would delay the Iranian program by at most a few years. Yet a policy of containment will not save the White House from having to make tough choices about using force. Indeed, Iran can be contained only if Washington is prepared to use force against an emboldened adversary armed with the ultimate weapon.

The rationale for the Iranian nuclear program has changed over time. It began as part of a largely defensive strategy under the moderate presidencies of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami. Nuclear weapons would provide a way to deter a range of foes while enhancing national prestige.

Today, as Iranian hawks consolidate their power and the Revolutionary Guards emerge as a key pillar of the state, Tehran views nuclear weapons as the means to regional preeminence. A nuclear shield would give Iran freedom to project its power in the Middle East. Such an Iran is unlikely to be subtle about brandishing the nuclear card.

It would take considerable American political skill and will to contain such regional pretensions. Washington would need to be explicit about its red lines: no initiation of conventional warfare against other countries; no use or transfer of nuclear weapons, material or technologies; no stepped-up support for terrorist or subversive activities. Washington would need to be just as explicit about the consequences of crossing those lines: potential U.S. military retaliation by any and all means necessary.

Tehran would probably test U.S. resolve early on, believing that regional dynamics had shifted sharply in its favor. In that case, the United States would face a momentous credibility crisis because it had failed to stop Iran from going nuclear after persistently declaring that such an outcome was unacceptable. Even close U.S. allies would doubt Washington's security guarantees.

An emboldened Iran would test Washington in several ways. It would probably lend more support to Hezbollah and Hamas and encourage them to act more aggressively against Israel. It might step up subversive activities against the Gulf sheikdoms and demand that they evict U.S. troops from their territory.

A nuclear Iran could also be tempted to transfer nuclear materials and technologies to other countries. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already declared that "Iran's nuclear achievements belong to all those countries thinking of peace and welfare, and we are prepared to provide these achievements to those who hate war and aggression." How would the United States respond to an Iran that transferred advanced centrifuges or nuclear weapon designs to its Syrian ally? Or if it gave fissile material to a terrorist group?

Such dangerous and destabilizing actions cannot be addressed by tough diplomatic talk or yet more U.N. Security Council resolutions. It can be addressed only by a willingness to respond with force. And in the curious logic that governs deterrence, a Tehran that believes Washington will retaliate will be less likely to act aggressively in the first place.

The challenges of making containment work make it far preferable that Iran stop -- or be stopped -- short of becoming a nuclear power. Efforts to negotiate limits on Iran's nuclear program must be pursued with vigor, and economic pressure on Tehran must be maintained. Military options should not be taken off the table.

If Tehran remains determined to go nuclear and preventive attacks prove too risky or unworkable to carry out, the United States will need to formulate a strategy to contain Iran. In doing so, however, it would be a mistake to assume that containment would save the United States from the need to make tough choices about retaliation. If Washington is not prepared to back up a containment strategy with force, the damage created by Iran's going nuclear could become catastrophic.

James M. Lindsay is senior vice president and Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Their article "After Iran Gets the Bomb" will be published in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs.

Ecuador says Iran ties landed it on laundering list

SANGOLQUI, Ecuador, Feb 20 (Reuters) - Ecuador's inclusion on an international list of nations accused of lagging in the fight against money-laundering is a hypocritical punishment for its relations with Iran, Ecuador's president said on Saturday.

"What arrogance! And why? Because we have relations with Iran. That's it," Rafael Correa said at his weekly town-hall meeting. "This is imperialism in its most base form ... This has nothing to do with the struggle against money laundering."

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), comprised of governments and regional organizations, named Ecuador this week alongside Iran, Angola, North Korea and Ethiopia as nations failing to comply with international regulations against money-laundering and financing terrorism. [ID:nLDE61H21G]

Under Correa, Ecuador has strengthened diplomatic and commercial ties with Iran, which has opened an embassy in Quito and is forging wider relations across Latin America despite the concerns of Washington.

"We have been black-listed along with Iran, Ethiopia, Angola and North Korea. We are the financiers of terrorism in the world!" the leftist Correa said indignantly during his regular Saturday televised address.

"It's a stick so you don't misbehave, naughty boy. You didn't do what I said, don't get involved with Iran. So because you went ahead, we'll put you on the black list, that's all."

The FATF said in its report, released on Thursday, that Ecuador had not "constructively engaged" with it and had "not committed" to global standards on money crimes.

Correa said Ecuador has perfectly adequate legislation and dismissed the report as "a huge lie." He asked why nobody had mentioned Brazil, which also has growing ties with Iran.

Correa said international authorities should put pressure instead on rich nations like the United States and Switzerland over money-laundering in their financial systems.

He was speaking in his weekly televised address, this time in the highland town of Sangolqui outside Quito. He arrived in a wheelchair after a knee operation in Cuba last week. (Reporting by Alexandra Valencia and Andrew Cawthorne; editing by Todd Eastham)

IAEA Board of Governors Report on Iran

Here you can read a copy of IAEA Board of Governors Report on Iran.

IAEA fears Iran working now on nuclear warhead

In unusually blunt language, an International Atomic Energy Agency report for the first time suggested Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability, throwing independent weight behind similar Western suspicions.

The IAEA seemed to be cautiously going public with concerns arising from a classified agency analysis leaked in part last year which concluded that Iran has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon.

The report also confirmed Iran had produced its first small batch of uranium enriched to a higher purity -- 20 percent.

Both developments will intensify pressure on Iran to prove it is not covertly bent on "weaponizing" enrichment by allowing unfettered access for IAEA inspectors and investigators, something it rejects in protest at U.N. sanctions.

The United States is already leading a push for the U.N. Security Council to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran because of suspicions it may be developing nuclear weapons and has received declarations of support from Russia, which has until now been reluctant to expand sanctions.

"We always said that if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One as President Barack Obama flew to a political event.

A senior Obama administration official said the IAEA report showed an "increasing pattern of non-cooperation" by Iran with the U.N. watchdog. The report also documented "significant technical problems" that Iran continues to have with its nuclear program, the official told reporters.

Tehran says its nuclear program is meant only to yield electricity or radio-isotopes for agriculture or medicine. It took an opposing view of the report's conclusions.

"The IAEA's new report confirmed Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and the country's non-deviation toward military purposes," Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the state news agency IRNA.

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS

For several years, the IAEA has been investigating Western intelligence reports indicating Iran has coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives at high altitude and revamp a ballistic missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.

In 2007, the United States issued an assessment saying Iran had halted such research in 2003 and probably not resumed it.

But its key Western allies believe Iran continued the program -- and the IAEA report offered independent support for that perception for the first time.

"The information available to the agency is extensive ... broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved," the report said.

"Altogether this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

IAEA's new chief, Yukiya Amano, is seen as more inclined to confront Iran than his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, who retired on December 1.

"Now we see from (available intelligence) that certain activities may have continued after 2004," said a senior official close to the IAEA. "We want to find out from Iran what they've had to do with these nuclear explosive-related activities."

The U.S. director of National Intelligence concluded last year that Iran would not be technically able to devise a nuclear weapon before 2013. But a new intelligence estimate is due soon.

Iran has dismissed the intelligence reports cited by the IAEA as fabrication but failed to provide its own evidence. Tehran has boycotted contact with the IAEA on the matter for 18 months.

The report, to be considered at a March 1-5 meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board, said it was vital for Iran to cooperate with IAEA investigators "without further delay."

HIGHER ENRICHMENT

Last week, Iran announced a start to higher-scale enrichment, saying it was frustrated at the collapse of an IAEA-backed plan for big powers to provide it with fuel rods for nuclear medicine made from uranium refined to 20 percent purity.

The IAEA report complained that Iran had begun feeding low-enriched uranium (LEU) into centrifuges for higher refinement before inspectors could get to the scene in the Natanz pilot enrichment facility.

"We have expressed our dissatisfaction," said the senior official close to the IAEA. "It is of paramount importance to have this information in a timely way to make sure there are no undeclared activities or facilities in Iran."

The big powers accused Iran of reneging on an agreement to ship out two-thirds of its LEU reserve to be turned into fuel rods for the medical reactor. This would have prevented Iran retaining enough of the material to fuel a nuclear weapon, if it were refined to about 90 percent purity.

Only France, one party to the U.N. draft deal, and Argentina are known to possess the technology. So analysts ask why Iran would enrich uranium well above its needs, except to lay the groundwork for producing bomb-grade uranium.

The report further said that Iran had increased its LEU stockpile by some 300 kg (660 pounds) to 2.06 tons since November -- enough for one or two nuclear bombs if enriched to 90 percent purity.

The IAEA said over nine-tenths of the LEU stockpile had been earmarked for enrichment up to 20 percent, a significant mark as further enrichment up to 90 percent may need only a few months.

But the report also attested to stagnating capacity at Natanz. It said the number of operating centrifuges had dropped to 3,772 from nearly 4,000.

This was well under half of all the machines installed in Natanz, the report indicated. Analysts and diplomats close to the IAEA say Iran may be having serious mechanical problems in keeping thousands of antiquated centrifuges running in unison.

But the senior official said Iran appeared to be shifting focus to a second enrichment site at Fordow near Qom, which Iran has said will preserve the program if foes bomb Natanz.

First Iranian-built destroyer launched in Gulf

TEHRAN (Reuters): "The first domestically made destroyer Jamaran was launched this morning and joined Iran's naval forces in the southern waters of the Persian Gulf," state television IRIB reported. It did not give the location of the launch.

The report showed footage of the warship and said it was equipped with torpedoes and electronic radar. The ship is 94 meters long and more than 1,500 tonnes, it said. Much of Iran's naval equipment dates from before the 1979 Islamic revolution and is U.S.-made.

Tension is high in the long-running international row over Iran's nuclear program, with Western powers calling for a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.

The West fears Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran says it plans only civilian nuclear facilities.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog said in its latest report it feared Iran might be working now to develop a nuclear payload for a missile.

The United States and its western allies say they want a diplomatic solution but have not ruled out military action against the Islamic republic.

The United States said in January it had expanded missile defense systems in and around the Gulf -- a waterway crucial for global oil supplies -- to counter what it sees as Iran's growing missile threat.

Iran condemned the move and accused Washington of seeking to stoke "Iran phobia".

More on Iran Laughable Bluffing

In a previous note I wrote that Iran's nuclear bravado is getting laughable.
By the time I wrote the note Iran was waving with its capacity to enrich uranium to the purity level of %20.
Now it is getting funnier!!
Speaking before a crowd of supporters in Tehran's Azadi Square, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced yesterday, on the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, that his nation had already enriched some of its uranium to 20% uranium, a significant step towards developing a nuclear weapon.
He even went as far as saying Iran has the capacity "to enrich uranium more than 80 percent", slightly below the 90 percent-plus level needed for a weapon.
In fact, there is something of the boy who cried wolf about Ahmadinejad's statements.
Bernard Kouchner told Europe 1 radio that the "Americans don't believe, not any more than us, that Iran is currently capable of enriching uranium to 80 percent."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that Iran's leadership has made a series of statements about its nuclear prowess based on politics, not physics.
Hours before Ahmadinejad's speech the Washington Post reported that "Iran is experiencing surprising setbacks in its efforts to enrich uranium" including "equipment failures and other difficulties" which could undermine Tehran's plans to dramatically scale up its nuclear program.
The Washington Post wrote the following:

U.N. reports over the last year have shown a drop in production at Iran's main uranium enrichment plant, near the city of Natanz. Now a new assessment, based on three years of internal data from U.N. nuclear inspections, suggests that Iran's mechanical woes are deeper than previously known. At least through the end of 2009, the Natanz plant appears to have performed so poorly that sabotage cannot be ruled out as an explanation, according to a draft study by David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). A copy of the report was provided to The Washington Post.
The ISIS study showed that more than half of the Natanz plant's 8,700 uranium-enriching machines, called centrifuges, were idle at the end of last year and that the number of working machines had steadily dropped -- from 5,000 in May to just over 3,900 in November. Moreover, output from the nominally functioning machines was about half of what was expected, said the report, drawing from data gathered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. A separate, forthcoming analysis by the Federation of American Scientists also describes Iran's flagging performance and suggests that continued failures may increase Iran's appetite for a deal with the West. Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the federation's Strategic Security Program, said Iranian leaders appear to have raced into large-scale uranium production for political reasons.

The West should help Iran go “green”

Here you can read my response to Hooman Majd's article in FP magazine, in which he argues that the Green Movement doesn't want or need foreign support.

The World Reacts To Iran's Decision To Produce %20 Enriched Uranium

Iran declared Tuesday it had started the process of producing 20 percent enriched uranium, defying world powers who have warned of new sanctions unless the Islamic republic halts its sensitive nuclear drive.

Below are some reactions:

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said Washington is now aiming for a fresh UN sanctions resolution against Iran in a matter of weeks, not months.

EU criticized Iran enrichment move saying it feeds a "deficit of confidence" in Tehran's atomic ambitions. The EU's nuclear envoy said Tuesday, reiterating that the bloc will back UN action.

Russia confirmed Tuesday a tougher stance on Iran. The powerful head of Russia’s national Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev told journalists that saying Tehran's uranium enrichment move this week cast "well-grounded" doubt on its vows not to pursue nuclear weapons and must be met with stern consequences.

China expressed hopes that the relevant parties will exchange views on the draft deal on the Tehran research reactor and reach common ground at an early date which will help solve the issue that the impasse
IAEA said a team of its inspectors was in place to monitor the stepped-up enrichment work in Natanz.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for immediate "crippling sanctions" against Iran.

Iran's Laughable Bluffing

Some remarkable US and Israeli official statements converged recently on toning down the threat of a nuclear Iran, or at least on ranking it lower on the list of threats their countries face.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN's "State of the Union"that the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Afghanistan, North Africa, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen exceeds that of a nuclear Iran. The latter is a real threat, she noted, while warning that the United States faces an even greater danger from Al-Qaeda.
Similarly, two weeks ago, Army Radio quoted Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak as saying that Israel's failure to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians is greater threat to the country than a nuclear Iran.
This sudden dilution of the Iranian nuclear threat, though, coincides with some interesting developments. Iran has over the past days announced the following:

• It officially decided to enrich at least some of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to 20 per cent, considered the threshold value for highly enriched.
• It intends to construct 10 new enrichment facilities within the next year.
  
• It has launched two production lines to build unmanned aircraft with surveillance and attack.
  
• It has announced it will soon deploy a missile air defence system more powerful than the advanced Russian S-300 system.

How could one comprehend the cited US and Israel laid-back positions in light of Iran's hot air? In fact both countries are nearing the conclusion that Iran's purported courage is eventually turning into bravado.
The close to worst case scenario was presented by US intelligence chief Dennis Blair in a written testimony to Congress. Blair reaffirmed the conclusions of the 2007 NIE assessment saying that Iran "has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so".
"We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapon (...) should it choose to do so" he wrote to the congress, while casting uncertainty on whether Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.
Even the way less tolerant Israeli intelligence has been pushing forward the due date for a deployable Iranian nuclear bomb. Last June, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, warned that Iran would be capable of developing and launching its first nuclear weapon by 2014, given its program "has no technical glitches (...) or does not malfunction in any way", which is not the case up till now.
The BBC’s Jon Leyne described Iran’s plans to have 10 new enrichment facilities operational within the next year as “almost laughably ambitious” given that it’s taken years bring the Natanz facility online and it still experiences problems.
Now the above shouldn't be confused with a fake peace of mind, otherwise the world will easily be sleepwalking into an post nuclear Iran Middle East.
The limited luxury of time available before the Mullahs could mushroom-cloud the sky somewhere on the planet, should be wisely invested. As essential as rushing to impose sanctions on the regime, is the attention should be payed to the internal situation in Iran, coupled with serious support to a more and more radicalized Green Movement.

Iran to start work on 20 percent nuclear fuel

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday instructed Iran's Atomic Energy Organization to start work on producing nuclear fuel for a Tehran research reactor, casting doubt on the prospects for a swap deal with the West.

"I asked Dr Salehi to start work on the production of 20 percent fuel using centrifuges," Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech, referring to Ali Akbar Salehi, who heads the atomic energy body.

Iran's police chief warns against potential protests

(CNN) -- Iran's police chief warned Saturday that security forces will firmly confront "illegal" gatherings on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a semi-official news agency reported.

Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam told semi-official news agency ILNA that it is "natural" that security forces carry out what he called their responsibility if security is threatened or if "sacred morals" are insulted on the "pretext" of criticism and protest.

Two top Iranian opposition leaders have called on supporters to protest Thursday, the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, an opposition Web site reported.

According to The Green Way Web site, opposition leaders Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Moussavi met last week at Karroubi's home. They called for people to take to the streets on Thursday to demand their rights back as citizens of Iran, the site reported.

According to the Saturday ILNA report, Moghaddam also said that security forces use "professional technology to prevent damages" in society, and mentioned monitoring text messages and e-mails.

Further details were not immediately available.

Opposition protests were launched after the disputed June 12 presidential election that gave hardline Ahmadinejad a second term. The government denies accusations of fraud.

About 4,000 people have been arrested in the post-election crackdown.

Last week, authorities hanged Mohammed Reza Ali Zamani, 37, and Arash Rahmanipour, 20, who had been convicted of being enemies of God and plotting to topple the Islamic regime.

The two were convicted in mass trials of opposition supporters in August, but Rahmanipour's lawyer said the young man was arrested two months before the election.

Gates Says U.S., Iran Aren’t Close to Nuclear Accord

From Bloomberg:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he doesn’t regard Iran as close to an accord with international powers on the handling of uranium.

“I don’t have the sense that we are close to an agreement,” Gates said today in Turkey’s capital Ankara. He discussed Iran with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Munich yesterday that Iran is “approaching a final agreement” on having nuclear fuel produced outside the Islamic Republic. The country is “serious,” he said.

The U.S., the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany are working to persuade Iran to give up enrichment of uranium, which could be used to produce fuel or make a bomb. The group, which also includes China, France, Russia, and the U.K., offered a proposal that would allow Iran to swap uranium in return for enriched fuel for a medical reactor.

Iran’s response has been “quite disappointing,” Gates said. The country continues to resist the International Atomic Energy Agency and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he said.

“The reality is they have done nothing to reassure the international community that they are prepared to comply with the NPT or stop their progress toward a nuclear weapon,” Gates said. “I think that various nations need to think about whether the time has come for a different tack.”

EU Critical

The U.S. and its partners have said that Iran’s failure to negotiate a successful agreement would lead to further pressure, including financial sanctions. The six nations are discussing a potential Security Council resolution calling for another round of sanctions.

Iran has not made an adequate response to the proposals, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said in Munich today.

Gates travels on to Rome today and Paris on Feb. 8 in a European trip that started with a NATO meeting in Istanbul.

Obama relies on Turkey, one of NATO’s two Muslim members, on a range of national security issues straddling Europe and the Middle East, including Iran and a planned withdrawal from neighboring Iraq. Turkey also uses U.S. surveillance data in its fight with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which launches attacks on Turkish targets from bases inside northern Iraq.

Gates said he told Turkish officials that he would look for more ways to assist Turkey in the effort. He cited a visit to Turkey last week by Army General Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

“I think what we’re seeing is a further intensification of the cooperation in an effort to deal with this threat,” Gates said.

Erdogan is struggling to win domestic support for a plan to widen rights for Kurds and encourage the PKK to disarm. Ending a war that has killed 40,000 people, mostly Kurds, and cost $300 billion by government estimates, would bolster Turkey’s status as a safe route to Europe for Eurasian oil and gas. It would also help revive Turkey’s bid to join the European Union, which criticizes the treatment of Kurds.

To contact the reporter on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at vgienger@bloomberg.net

A Strategy Not To Accept Nuclear Iran

Paul J. Saunders argues in a his piece in "National Interest Online" that Washington should start to develop a serious plan to manage the most likely future: an unreformed and nuclear-capable Iran.
Without providing any shred of evidence, Saunders argues that such a strategy would attain the following:

• Deterring Iran from using nuclear weapons.
  
• Ensuring that a potentially nuclear Iran would not be emboldened in relations with its neighbors.
  
• Preventing Iran from sharing nuclear technology with others.

While Saunders' riddled with illusion argument hovered around the idea of preparing for a possible nuclear Iran , he calls upon his readers to find comfort in the assurance that what he is suggesting is:

a sensible strategy that will allow America not to accept a nuclear Iran if one should emerge despite our best efforts.

Do we need a strategy "not to accept a nuclear Iran"?? Isn't this Washington's basic position according to which "strategies" are supposed to be designed??

Iran says nuclear deal is 'close'

Iran's foreign minister has said it is closing in on a deal with world powers over its nuclear programme. BBC report

In Germany, Manouchehr Mottaki said a deal to send enriched uranium overseas in exchange for nuclear fuel could be reached in a "not too distant future".

China, opposed to imposing new sanctions against Tehran, said talks with the international community had reached a "crucial stage".

There was no reaction to Mr Mottaki's comments from Western delegates.

The US and its allies fear Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful in purpose.

The BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne, reporting from London, says the strong suspicion is that the Iranian remarks are just another attempt to fend off new sanctions being proposed by the United States.

Mr Mottaki made his comments after deciding to join the Munich conference - a major international gathering of security officials - at the last minute.

He told a late-night audience that "conducive ground" on a nuclear fuel deal had been reached.

"Under the present conditions that we have reached, I think that we are approaching a final agreement that can be accepted by all parties," he said.

"[The] Islamic republic of Iran has shown it is serious about doing this, and we have shown it at the highest level," he said.

Diplomatic manoeuvring

But Mr Mottaki did not mention the key issue of timing and insisted that the quantity of fuel involved should be up to Iran.

In January, diplomats said Iran had informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it did not accept the terms of a deal agreed in October by Iran, the IAEA and the so-called P5+1 - the US, Russia, China, UK and France plus Germany.

In response, the US, Britain and France have been pressing for more sanctions and earlier this week circulated a discussion paper on further possible measures against the country.

The move came despite recent comments by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicating that the country would have "no problem" sending much of its low-enriched uranium abroad so it could be processed into fuel - an arrangement envisaged by the October agreement.

Western diplomats reacted warily to Mr Ahmedinejad's comments.

But China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told the Munich conference that the P5+1 should remain patient and keep pursuing a diplomatic solution to the issue.

"The parties concerned should, with the overall and long-term interests in mind, step up diplomatic efforts, stay patient and adopt a more flexible, pragmatic and proactive policy," he said.

"The purpose is to seek a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution through dialogue and negotiations."

Australia blocks suspicious shipments to Iran

The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 3, 2010; 6:35 PM

SYDNEY -- Australia recently blocked several export shipments to Iran because of concern the cargo may have been destined for Tehran's nuclear weapons programs, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Thursday.

The bans were ordered by the defense minister under laws aimed at preventing the proliferation of material that could be used in weapons of mass destruction.

"In the case of Iran, the defense minister has on a number of occasions - I'm advised three - exercised his power under the act and has done so entirely appropriately," Rudd told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Rudd declined to say what the material in the shipments was, or give details about when they were blocked.

The Australian newspaper first reported the blocked shipments and said one of them was understood to include pumps that could have been used to cool nuclear power plants. The report said there were up to three other shipments - one more than Rudd mentioned - but that no details were known about them.

Australia has imposed various trade sanctions on Iran as part of U.N. efforts to persuade the Middle East country to end its nuclear programs.

Rudd said that Iran's nuclear ambitions posed a threat to global peace and international pressure must continue to convince Tehran to abandon them.

"If you look at the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program and their consistent thumbing of the nose to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the international community more broadly and the continuation of their nuclear weapons program despite international condemnation, there are no alternatives other than to maintain a hard line," he said.

Petraeus says strike on Iran could spark nationalism

A military strike on Iran could have the unintended consequence of stirring nationalist sentiment to the benefit of Tehran's hard-line government, U.S. General David Petraeus told Reuters.

Iran's June election gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term but sparked the worst internal crisis in the Islamic Republic's history, putting internal pressure on a government already facing the threat of more sanctions over its nuclear program.
"It's possible (a strike) could be used to play to nationalist tendencies," Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command region, which includes Iran, said in an interview this week.
"There is certainly a history, in other countries, of fairly autocratic regimes almost creating incidents that inflame nationalist sentiment. So that could be among the many different, second, third, or even fourth order effects (of a strike)."
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have set off speculation that Israel could make good on veiled threats to hit its arch-foe pre-emptively. But Israel's envoy to Washington said in December the U.S.-Israeli dialogue on Iran has not reached the point of discussing the military option.
U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have warned that any strike on Iran would not stop the Islamic Republic from pursuing nuclear weapons. Instead, it would only delay Tehran, an opinion Petraeus said he shared.
Dennis Blair, the U.S. director of national intelligence, told Congress on Tuesday that Iran was keeping open the option of developing nuclear weapons but that it remained unclear whether Tehran had the political will to do so.
Petraeus, commenting on advances of Iran's nuclear program, said: "On the one hand, there is no question that there has been a continuation of various aspects of the nuclear program but I'm not sure it has always proceeded as rapidly as has been projected at various times."

GRADUAL BOOST IN DEFENSES
Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday Iran was ready to send its enriched uranium abroad in exchange for nuclear fuel under a plan the West hopes will stop the material from being used for atomic bombs.
The same day, Iran also said it would soon hang nine more rioters over unrest that erupted after the June presidential vote, which protesters said was rigged.
Petraeus cautioned that the "big winner" of the election had been Iran's security apparatus, expanding the influence the Revolutionary Guards Corps, including its elite Qods force.
"It's gone from I think a theocracy that had democratic elements in a narrow spectrum ... to a government that is the result of a hijacked election and a regime that is kept in power by security services to a vastly greater extent than has ever been the case before," he said.
Asked how this changed prospects diplomatically, Petraeus said: "I don't think it simplifies the situation for those who are trying to pursue diplomacy if the role of the Foreign Ministry is diminished further and the role of the Qods force has been augmented."
To counter the Iranian threat and reassure anxious Gulf allies, the United States has expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf.
Petraeus stressed it had been a gradual build-up -- an approach shared by both the Obama and Bush administrations -- and not something sparked by events in Iran in recent months.
"This has been built up over years of inflammatory Iranian rhetoric, alarming Iranian activities and Iranian provision of arms, money, training, explosives and direction in some cases to a variety of different extremist elements," Petraeus said.
Iran has accused the United States of seeking to stoke "Iran phobia" in the Middle East by deploying the missile defense systems in the Gulf.
The United States and major European allies are pursuing broader U.N. sanctions against Iran due to its disputed nuclear activity. The United States, Britain, Germany and France have called for a fourth round of U.N. measures against Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment activities as demanded by five Security Council resolutions.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

Ya'alon says Iran can still be stopped

Strategic affairs minister tells Herzliya Conference that despite the large amount of time that has seemingly been wasted on futile diplomatic efforts, Iran can still be stopped, and the Iranian people can still be allowed back as a respected member of the family of peace- and freedom-seeking nations.

"The State of Israel must conduct itself by the notion that 'the work of righteous will be done by others,' but should prepare in accordance with the words of our fathers: 'If I am not for myself, who will be for me?'" Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon told Herzliya Conference on Wednesday regarding the options at Israel's disposal when facing Iran.
Ya'alon called upon the international community to make it clear to Iran that it is prepared to pay an economic price, and even a military price, in order to solve the nuclear issue.
Ya'alon spoke about the negotiations being conducted with Iran regarding its nuclear program: "I believe that despite the large amount of time that has seemingly been wasted on futile diplomatic efforts, Iran can still be stopped, and the Iranian people can still be allowed back as a respected member of the family of peace- and freedom-seeking nations."
"The Iranian regime has many weaknesses. It can certainly be made clear to them that foregoing the idea of entering the brink is the best course of action for them, since adhering (to their nuclear program) will endanger their basic interest of remaining in power," asserted Ya'alon.
Ya'alon did not rule out the use of force: "The plan, of course, will likely be halted, be it through a regime change in Iran or through, with no other choice, the application of force in order to deprive Iran of its capability to produce a nuclear weapon."
He added, "It is important to continue clarifying to the extremist regime in Iran that as all options remain on the table and that ignoring the demands of the international community will likely end in bitter tears for Iran."
In his speech, the minister for strategic affairs also addressed Tehran's influence on countries in the region.
"It is not beyond reason that the changes in Turkey's policies towards Iran are related to a sense that Iran is about to become a country on the brink of nuclear weapons. Under these conditions, it is even more difficult to assume that Syria will abandon its ties with Iran to advance the peace process with Israel," concluded Ya'alon.
Ya'alon called upon the international community to make it clear that it is prepared to pay an economic price in order to solve the nuclear issue: "It is important to clarify to Iran that leading officials in the international community are determined to the point of willingness to place the issue at the top of their priorities, and even to pay an economic, and perhaps even military, price."
Ya'alon warned that knowledge of Iran's nuclear capabilities may destabilize the region. One reason for this, according to him, is that it may creating a domino effect by which neighboring countries will initiate efforts to obtain nuclear arms.
"They won't wait until Iran crosses the nuclear threshold if they are convinced there is nothing stopping them," explained Ya'alon. He noted that Iran seeks regional hegemony and to create an existential threat against Israel. "However, their most important objective is changing the world order, and replacing it with one in which Islam has a leading role."

Dictatorship still exists in post-1979 Iran: Mousavi

AFP TEHRAN — Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi said Tuesday the 1979 Islamic revolution had failed to achieve its goals as the "roots of tyranny and dictatorship" that marked the shah's era still exist.

The ex-premier, once rated as a key pillar of the Islamic revolution, added in a strongly worded interview posted on his website Kaleme.org that present day Iran showed the "attitude of a historic tyrant regime everywhere."

"Dictatorship in the name of religion is the worst kind. The most evident manifestation of a continued tyrannical attitude is the abuse of parliament and judiciary. We have completely lost hope in the judiciary," he said.

Mousavi added that he no longer believed, as he once did, "that the (1979 Islamic) revolution had removed all those structures which could lead to totalitarianism and dictatorship."

"Stifling the media, filling the prisons and brutally killing people who peacefully demand their rights in the streets indicate the roots of tyranny and dictatorship remain from the monarchist era... I don't believe that the revolution achieved its goals," said Mousavi in his strongest published opinion yet on the revolution.

The former prime minister, who has spearheaded the anti-government protests since the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last June, made the remarks as Iran marks the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

Celebrations marking the 1979 return from exile of hardline cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini began on Monday and will climax on February 11, the anniversary of the fall of shah who had ruled Iran for nearly four decades.

The violent protests against Ahmadinejad have triggered one of the worst crises since the foundation of the Islamic republic, rocked the pillars of the regime and divided the nation's clergy.

Dozens of people have been killed in the protests, hundreds wounded and several others put on trial by authorities for plotting to overthrow the government.

A judicial official said on Tuesday that the authorities would "soon execute" another nine people arrested during anti-government protests for seeking to topple the Islamic regime. Iran executed two people on Thursday on similar charges.

Mousavi as prime minister steered the nation's economy during the brutal conflict between Iran and Iraq in the 80s under the leadership of revolutionary leader Khomeini.

"Another example is the similarity between elections (now) and the ones in past," he said in the interview, just days after implicitly calling his supporters to demonstrate yet again on February 11 when traditionally Iranians march across the country to celebrate the revolution.

He also called on Iran's volunteer Basij militia and the police who have been used by authorities to crack down on protesters, to be "nice to people."

He went on to urge his supporters to "reduce their differences with other people", adding that his opposition movement, known as the "green movement", has "risen from the people and it belongs to the people."

White House denies prisoner swap talks with Iran

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday denied it had held "any discussion" with Iran about a possible prisoner swap, refuting an earlier claim by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"We have not entered into any discussion with Iran about an exchange," National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told AFP.

In an interview on state television Tuesday, Ahmadinejad said that talks about exchanging prisoners with the United States were underway when he was asked about the fate of three American hikers detained in Iran.

"They have arrested our citizens for nothing... this is very bad... now there are talks whether it is possible to do an exchange" of prisoners, he said.

But Hammer denied talks were underway, and he and other US officials said reports of Ahmadinejad's comments were "fragmentary."

"We have made clear that we would like the cases of all our missing and detained American citizens to be resolved," he said. "If president Ahmadinejad's comments suggest that they are prepared to resolve these cases, we would welcome that step."

"But we have not entered into any discussion with Iran about an exchange. As we have indicated publicly, if Iran has questions about its citizens in US custody, we are prepared to answer them."

Iran is holding a number of US citizens in custody, including three American hikers -- Sarah Shourd, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer -- arrested after wandering over the Iraq border into Iranian territory.

"We said that we do not like to imprison anybody. Now they have given some messages and we replied that we bring these (three Americans) and they bring them (Iranians held in US prisons) and let us see what happens," Ahmadinejad told Iranian state television.

The State Department repeated longstanding US requests for access to the three Americans after the Iranian leader's remarks.

"It's hard to know what President Ahmadinejad meant from the fragmentary media reports we've seen," Gordon Duguid, a State Department spokesman, told AFP after Ahmadinejad said a prison swap could be arranged.

"We've made it clear that what we want is consular access to our citizens in Iranian custody," he added.

"If President Ahmadinejad's comments suggest the Iranians are prepared to grant us access through the Swiss and resolve the cases of the three hikers and others in custody, we would welcome that step as it's long overdue," he said.

Among the 11 Iranians that Tehran alleges are "illegally" detained in the United States is nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri who went missing in Saudi Arabia while on pilgrimage to Mecca last year.

Iranian officials have accused Washington of kidnapping Amiri from Saudi Arabia.