PAY UP OR ELSE.....

U.S. Judge Orders Iran to Pay $2.65 Billion to 1983 Beirut Attack Families
Friday, September 07, 2007 - E-MAIL STORY :

WASHINGTON — Iran must pay $2.65 billion to the families of the 241 U.S. service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, a federal judge declared Friday in a ruling that left survivors and families shedding tears of joy. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth described his ruling as the largest-ever such judgment by an American court against another country. "These individuals, whose hearts and souls were forever broken, waited patiently for nearly a quarter century for justice to be done," he said.

Iran has been blamed for supporting the militant group Hezbollah, which carried out the suicide bombing in Beirut. It was the worst terrorist act against U.S. targets until the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Hundreds of people crowded into a federal courtroom to hear Friday's ruling. Parents have grown old since their children were killed. Siblings have grown into middle-age. Children have married and started families of their own. Weeping spectators stood and erupted in applause and hugs as Lamberth left the bench. The ruling allows nearly 1,000 family members and a handful of survivors to try to collect Iranian assets from various sources around the world. Finding and seizing that money will be difficult, however, and the families are backing a law in Congress that would make it easier for terrorism victims and their families to do so.
Families were encouraged by Libya's decision to ultimately accept responsibility for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Scotland. The country, once a pariah by Washington's view, agreed to compensate the families of the 270 victims. Part of the $2.7 billion has been paid. A final $2 million installment to each family is outstanding. "This is a sense of victory, of winning a battle," said Paul Rivers, who was a 20-year-old enlisted Marine on the second floor of the barracks when it exploded. "When we win the war is when we collect, when we make them pay for what they did." ran has denied responsibility for the attack. The nation did not respond to the 6-year-old lawsuit and was represented only by an empty table. Family members said they hoped Friday's ruling would pressure foreign governments not to sponsor terrorism. Lynn Smith Derbyshire, whose brother, Vincent Smith, was killed in the attack, said countries won't stop until "it begins to actually cost them money to kill Americans." Some disagreed about whether that will happen. Roxanne Garcia-Bates, who was 16 when her brother, Randy Garcia, was killed, said she was surprised to find a sense of comfort being with the other families in court. She said she was pleased that Lamberth had made such a strong statement, but doubted that Iran would change anytime soon. "You can't take enough money away to get them to stop what they're doing," she said. All agreed that emotions remain raw to this day. Rivers described being one of the second floor's five survivors. All but him lost arms or legs, he said. He was buried in the rubble for two hours, he said. Debris had punctured his eardrum and "I literally had rocks inside my head." Shirley Murry of Baltimore, who was 16 years old at the time, described the tense days of waiting around the television for word of her brother, Ulysses Parker. Today, every time the news carries a story about a fallen soldier or an explosion overseas, she said it's like that first day all over again. Lamberth said the law "offers a meager attempt to make the surviving members whole." He said he hoped the judgment would alert Iran that terrorism has consequences and help in the families' healing process. Pausing, he added: "That's all I can do."

WILL THIS SINK IN .....OR THE IRANIAN WILL KEEP THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND...

پنجشنبه، 15 شهریور ماه 1386 برابر با 2007 Thursday 06 September

آمریکا برای حمله به جمهوری اسلامی آماده می شود

خبرگزاری روسی نووستی: یکی از کارمندان اسبق سازمان سیا که به نوعی در جریان جنگ اول آمریکا در خلیج فارس و بعد از حمله به عراق درسال 2003 در این کشور خدمت کرده به مجله " Harpers" اطلاع داد که آمریکا به طور غیرعلنی برای حمله به اهداف زیادی در جمهوری اسلامی آماده می شود. وی گفت: "در حال حاضر اعزام گسترده نیروها و تجهیزات به منطقه انجام می شود. اعزام نیروهای نظامی نیروی دریایی آمریکا به خلیج فارس بسیار گران تمام می شود اما در حال حاضر ما سه یگان در آنجا داریم. ما همچنین جنگنده های جدیدی را به "گوام " اعزام نمودیم". به گزارش این مجله "فعالیت رو به افزایش نیروی دریای آمریکا در کنار مراکز نظامی دریایی در "نورفولک " (ایالت ویرجینیا) کاملا مشهود است". این مقام آگاه افزود: "تنها یک منطقه در جهان وجود دارد که همه اینها به آنجا اعزام می شوند. در ضمن تمام کسانی که من آنها را می شناسم و کسانی که می توانند در حمله به رژیم تهران شرکت داشته باشند یعنی خلبانان و غیره همه ناپدید شده اند. معمولا کسی از آنها باقی می ماند اما در حال حاضر همه آنها یک دفعه غیب شده اند". به نظر وی در کنار تحرک غیر معمولی نظامیان آمریکایی ، "اعلامیه های تند کاخ سفید نیز نشان دیگری از احتمال زیاد حمله به رژیم تهران است". وی گفت: "این اواخر "جرج بوش" دائما از ایران صحبت می کند و سپاه پاسداران را به لیست گروهای تروریستی افزوده است. هر چه می خواهید درباره رییس جمهور فکر کنید اما من حرف وی را قبول دارم که گفت نباید به رژیم تهران اجازه داد که در برنامه هسته ای خود پیشرفت کند". روزنامه روسی: آمریکا در پی نابودی جمهوری اسلامی است خبرگزاری روسی نووستی به نقل از روزنامه کراسنایا زویزدا چاپ مسکو نوشت آمریکا قصد دارد طی سه روز با حملات هوایی سنگین حدود 1200 هدف نظامی در جمهوری اسلامی را مورد تهاجم قرار دهد و بدین وسیله توان نظامی این رژیم را نابود سازد. روزنامه ایتالیایی "کوریر دلاسرا" در این باره می نویسد اگر به پنتاگون (وزارت دفاع آمریکا) چراغ سبز داده شود، عملیات هوایی آغاز خواهد شد و برای این منظور 200 فروند هواپیما از نوع B-52 و B-2 گرفته تا هواپیماهای نامرئی F-117A در این عملیات شرکت خواهند کرد.هدف این حملات تنها مراکز هسته ای و یا مراکز تولید تسلیحات استراتژیکی (موشک و گاز) نبوده بلکه مراکز فرماندهی و هدایت، پایگاه های سپاه پاسداران، وزارتخانه ها و مراکز حیاتی جمهوری اسلامی را نیز شامل می شود.بر اساس لیست تهیه شده توسط رایانه های کمیته واحد روسای ستادهای نیروهای مسلح آمریکا، تقریبا ده هزار هدف باید نابود گردند. برای این منظور هواپیماهای B-2A آزمایشات مختلفی با استفاده از بمب های مدرن انجام می دهند که قابلیت نفوذ پذیری بالایی دارد و می تواند بونکرهای زیرزمینی در عمق 60 متری را تخریب کنند. پنتاگون همچنین در نظر دارد که از تعداد اندکی از نیروهای زمینی خویش در کنار سواحل و مناطق تجهیزات نفتی استفاده کند. از جمله واحد های تفنگداران دریایی باید با حملاتی که احتمالا در پاسخ از سوی سپاه پاسداران صورت گیرد مقابله کنند که از روش "نیش زدن و فرار کردن" استفاده می کند. در این روش از قایق های مین گذاری شده، قایق های تند رو و مین های زیر دریایی استفاده می شود و به واحد های ویژه نیروی دریایی دستور داده شده که با بلوکه کردن تنگه هرمز مقابله کنند. در صورتی که پاسداران بتوانند تنگه هرمز را مسدود کنند، قرار است که نفت آلاسکا استخراج شده و به طور کامل از ذخایر نفتی خود و بهره گیری از ابزار دیگر که در اثر کاهش صادرات نفتی ایران ممکن است بروز کند، در جهت تسهیل بحران اقتصادی شدید استفاده شود. لحن خصمانه ای که اخیرا آمریکا نسبت به جمهوری اسلامی استفاده می کند اتفاقی نیست. چندی پیش "جرج بوش" رییس جمهور آمریکا سخنان تندی ایراد کرد و اعلام نمود که رژیم تهران خاورنزدیک را تحت "هولوکاست هسته ای" قرار داده است. وی همچنین هشدار داد که آمریکا و متفقین آن تا کاملا دیر نشده آماده مناقشه مستقیم با رژیم تهران هستند. این سخنان بعنوان آن برداشت شد که بوش قاطعانه قصد مقابله با جمهوری اسلامی را دارد.

US Steps Up Probe of EU Banks : August 29, 2007

The Financial Times Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
The US justice department and other authorities have stepped up investigations into several large European banks for violating US sanctions against Iran, Libya, Cuba and Sudan. One person familiar with the probes said some banks had started to discuss settlements with the authorities and could agree to financial penalties by the end of the year. A number of the banks, whose names have not been disclosed, came under investigation by authorities, including the Treasury, when they alerted the government to potential violations after a landmark money laundering settlement by ABN Amro in 2005, according to people familiar with the matter. The Dutch bank was fined $80m by the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, state regulators and the Federal Reserve after it emerged that its US offices had processed wire transfers that originated from Bank Melli Iran and engaged in transfers involving Libya. The payments breached anti-money laundering compliance rules and requirements that banks report suspicious activity. Some payments were transferred through the US after ABN obscured identifying references. After its $80m civil fine, ABN Amro said in April it was putting aside €365m to resolve a separate criminal investigation by the justice department into its dollar-clearing activities. The Clearing House and the Wolfsberg Group, two international banking associations whose members include HSBC, UBS and Credit Suisse, have endorsed changes that would provide banks and their counterparts with more information about those conducting wire transfers. US officials, including under-secretary Stuart Levey at the Treasury, applauded the banks’ initiative but it is thought unlikely to deter authorities from addressing previous violations.

Iran's First Official Nuclear Threat : FrontPageMagazine.com : Steve Schippert

Iran's First Official Nuclear Threat : FrontPageMagazine.com : Steve Schippert
Last week, Iran announced that it has graduated into the industrial production phase in their nuclear program, claiming to have enriched uranium in a 3,000-centrifuge cascade. "I proudly announce that as of today Iran is among the countries which produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale," boasted Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But while the Iranian claims are questionable, it is what Ahmadinejad said soon after that should garner the lion’s share of attention from the observant. What followed is nothing short of Iran’s first official nuclear threat.Ahmadinejad forewarned the United States and Europe about its opposition to Iran’s nuclear weapons program by announcing, “Iran has so far moved in a completely peaceful path and wants to continue following this path, they should avoid doing something which forces this nation to review its behavior.” And with that, Iran seeks to shift responsibility for the coming Iranian nuclear weapons production. A nuclear armed Iran will thus be the fault of the United States and Europe. This psychology is important to both acknowledge and understand. If by “completely peaceful path” Ahmadinejad means that Iran has “so far” not produced a nuclear weapon, he’d be quite right. But Western populations should note that Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program went swiftly and officially under military control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ command the moment the extent of its once-clandestine program was revealed by Iranian dissidents 2003. The psychology of Ahmadinejad’s threat is revelatory and supported by past behavior in that regard. First, the voting public in Western democracies should understand that the statement targets them much more their current leaderships. What Iran is trying to do – with some success – is to portray itself as the victim of unfair and oppressive behavior and not the aggressor. As this applies to their nuclear gambit, if it weren’t for the aggressive elected leadership in the United States, Britain, France and elsewhere, Iran would not one day have to ‘switch over’ to producing nuclear weapons. Iran is setting the stage for as many voters as possible to perceive the emergence of its nuclear weapons as the fault of Western aggression, an unfortunate diversion from their original peaceful aims of nothing more than kilowatt-hours. This is the psychological imagery the regime also employed during the recent British hostage situation. The British sailors and Royal Marines were not only shown ‘confessing’ on tape and over the air, but also smiling, thanking Ahmadinejad for his hospitality and toting home goodie bags filled with Persian gifts. After their release, the regime made sure to counter later claims of mistreatment with more imagery and footage of the same individuals comfortably playing chess and other pastimes. Hospitable and benevolent Iran. That’s the message. Never mind that the sailors were abducted from Iraqi waters. They left with smiles and goodie bags. To close the psychological loop, consider by contrast the images aired and published of the Iranian freed from Iraq soon after the Brits were sent home. Jalal Sharafi, described as the Second Secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, is visible at a Wednesday Tehran press conference – days after his release – at the microphones dressed in blue hospital scrubs, lest anyone forget he is hospitalized for his mistreatment. For good measure, a doctor in his white medical robe is placed behind him and always within camera range of Sharafi. Iran, the victim of US aggression. That is the message. And the electorates of the West are the primary intended recipients. The leaderships of those countries are already committed to a track of economic sanctions – weak as they may be – on an Iran whose economy can endure little outside pressure without profoundly dangerous consequences for the regime’s stability. But those electorates are seen as receptive, particularly in America where President Bush’s popularity is so low as to usher in a sweeping change in Congressional leadership. And if that leadership is maverick enough to ignore the sitting president and conduct parallel foreign policy with Iranian ally Syria, surely there is opportunity in the cards for the mullahcracy. That, of course, is the plan, as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and others have announced their desire to trek to Tehran soon. And welcome they would be. One member of Pelosi’s Congressional junket, Representative Tom Lantos, is quoted in Bashar Assad’s regime-controlled Syrian Arab News Agency as saying of the Assad policy meetings, “The visit expressed in a marvelous way interests of the US, that led to embarrassment of the current US administration which has closed doors for dialogue with Syria.” Lantos continued that Assad “strongly encourages the continuation of the Syrian-American dialogue.” Well of course he would. The visiting members of Congress are effectively doing Assad’s bidding against President Bush and he is quite pleased that their actions have “led to embarrassment of the current US administration.” Assad could never have accomplished this alone. Iran too wants a visit and Lantos said he was "ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning" for Tehran to oblige. Astonishingly, Lantos says he is anxious to discuss a ‘new’ United States House of Representatives initiative to establish a world “nuclear fuel bank” that would supply Iran with it’s nuclear fuel necessary to run its envisioned nuclear electric plant. Unfortunately, this idea has already been broached by both the Europeans and the Russians in the past 3½ years of ‘negotiations.’ Not surprisingly, the Iranians rejected this novel idea already and sent the Russians and Europeans packing. You see, the issue is not about kilo-watt hours. It remains about Iran’s domestic mastery and control of the nuclear fuel cycle, affording them the ability to ultimately produce nuclear weapons. When it comes to the upstart Congressional Foreign Policy Czars, we should apparently never mind that they are being used by the regimes. Never mind too that the responsibility for foreign diplomacy lies – Constitutionally – solely with the Executive Branch. Do mind, however, that Iran is still training those who attack and kill our troops in Iraq. Do mind that Iran is still supplying arms and funds to Hamas who, Israel has learned, has been planning major attacks against her. Do mind that over 100 al-Qaeda terrorists, including leadership, remain operating freely – under ‘house arrest’ – in Iran. And, of course, do mind that Iran has already rejected Congressman Lantos’ planned international ‘nuclear fuel bank’ solution. Iran has said time and again that uranium enrichment is non-negotiable. At some point, this oft repeated position will have to be acknowledged. And while Iran is busy not negotiating its nuclear program, it welcomes talks with Europe and, surely, American congressmen. It would be prudent for such American elected officials to bear in mind that Iran is clearly also busy making their first nuclear threat, as Ahmadinejad warns that the West “should avoid doing something which forces this nation to review its behavior.” Perhaps it would indeed be wise to “review its behavior” as the world’s premier state sponsor of international terrorism. But given the West’s lack of appetite to substantively derail the Iranian nuclear weapons program, Iran likely sees little cause for concern. This week’s first official Iranian nuclear threat looks more likely to be eventually followed by nuclear blackmail or worse. Least likely of all is a solution magically negotiated through the prescient wisdom of American congressman. But come on over. Iran has always sought a diplomatic solution to the West’s unnecessary nuclear concerns, and who better to broach the subject than the new American Foreign Ministry? Warm presidential hospitality and Persian goodie bags await.

Iran War begins in the NORTH.

The Theater's "Northern Front": Azerbaijan and the US Sponsored War on Iran ; by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky ; Global Research, April 9, 2007 - Email this article to a friend / Print this article

In a timely decision, Azerbaijan recently (mid-March) granted NATO the permission to use two of its military bases and an airport to "back up its peace-keeping operation in Afghanistan" including support for NATO's "supply route to Afghanistan". NATO's special envoy Robert Simmons insists that the agreement has nothing to do with US plans to wage aerial bombardments on Iran. Media sources in Baku have intimated that this timely agreement is directly related to ongoing US-Israeli-NATO war plans. Its timing coincides with US naval deployments and war games in the Persian Gulf. The airport and two military bases are slated to be "modernized to meet NATO standards". Washington has confirmed in this regard that it would "support the modernization of a military airport in the framework of the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) signed between Azerbaijan and NATO. Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan released a statement to the effect that "Azerbaijan's territory will not be at the disposal of any country for hostile acts against neighbours [Iran] " (See Mardom Salari (Farsi), BBC translation, 5 April 2007). This announcement by the Azeri Defense Ministry was in response to an off-the-cuff statement by US Undersecretary of State Matthew Bryza, at a press conference in Georgia (March 30) to the effect that "The United States hopes for permission to use airfields in Azerbaijan for military purposes." (emphasis added)
"A lot of planes overfly Georgia and Azerbaijan on the way to Afghanistan. Should it prove necessary, we would like to be able to use an airfield in Azerbaijan," the US diplomat said, answering a question concerning the modernization of a military airfield in Azerbaijan with the Americans' help. (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, April 2, 2007) Maj. Eric Lehman, GSSOP Task Force commander (Left), briefs Mr. Matthew Bryza, deputy assistant secretary of state for Eurasian affairs(Center) and Ambassador Richard Miles (Right) during convoy ambush training July 29th 2006 at Krtsanisi National Training Center about 25 kilometers south of Tbilisi, Georgia According to Azerbaijani political scientist, Zardusht Alizade, the NATO/US military agreement with the Baku government pertains to several Azeri airfields, which could be used to receive and service US/NATO aircraft: "Baku may also help the United States with data on ballistic missile defense'... Moreover, the words of the Azerbaijani authorities do not always match their deeds, and the statement of the Defense Ministry may be anything but the last word on the subject. "If the US Administration appeals to Aliyev and the latter summons the courage to turn the request down, all the better for him," Alizade said. "I do not really think that he will want to peeve Washington." According to the political scientist, the consequences of this step may be quite dire. Tehran has already proclaimed its readiness to strike at strategic objects nearby which are important for the United States. "Iranian capacities are not to be underestimated. A single division of its armed forces can occupy all of Azerbaijan without a second thought. I only hope that this is some sort of political game and that the United States does not really intend to strike at Iran," Alizade said" (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, April 2, 2007) (emphasis added)
Strategic Caspian Sea Maritime Border with Iran . Azerbaijan is also strategic in view of its maritime border with Iran in the Caspian sea. In this regard, the U.S. Navy is involved in supporting the Azeri Navy, in the area of training. There is also an agreement to provide US support to refurbish Azeri warships in the Caspian sea. The US sponsored Caspian Guard Initiative was launched in 2003 to "coordinate activities in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan with those of U.S. Central Command and other U.S government agencies to enhance Caspian security." The initiative was implemented under the cover of preventing narcotics trafficking and counter- terrorism, Its ultimate objective, however, is to provide USCENTCOM with a strategic naval corridor in the Caspian sea basin. The US has also participated in joint Naval exercises with the Azeri Army’s 641st Special Warfare Naval Unit, headquartered at the Azeri Naval Station outside Baku. More generally, both the US and NATO are in the process of deepening their military cooperation with Azerbaijan. In recent developments, military-political consultations between the US and Azerbaijan are scheduled to be held in Washington in the second half of April, according to a US Embassy source in Baku. (APA News, 4 April 2007)
"the consultations will cover issues on strategic cooperation, Azerbaijan-NATO relations, the mutual activity of both countries in Iraq and Afghanistan and some other issues.[Iran] (ibid)
The timing of these consultations is crucial. They coincide chronologically with a process of advanced military planning. Azerbaijan could be the object of retaliatory strikes by Iran, if the country's military bases are used by NATO-US forces as a launch pad for waging war on Iran.
Media sources in Baku have suggested that retaliatory bombings by Iran could include Azeri oil fields and oil and gas pipelines. The strategic Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which links the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean could also be a target. The Baku Ceyan pipeline is controlled by an Anglo-American consortium led by British Petroleum (BP). In early April, Iran deployed troops and military hardware along the Iranian-Azerbaijani border. According to an April 4 report of the Azerbaijani news agency Turan: "Military experts think that the deployment of troops and hardware pursue defence ends. This means that the troops are being pushed forward to repel attacks... The start of an information [propaganda] war is obvious. An intelligence expert has told Turan that recent publications in the media saying that Iran has drawn up a list of facilities in Azerbaijan that will be bombed in case of a US attack [on Iran] are a glaring example of this. Most likely, the reports were prepared and passed to the mass media by the Iranian secret services to exert psychological pressure on Baku. The goal is to deter Baku from supporting Washington in a military conflict with Tehran. (Turan, 4 April 2007) (emphasis added)
The Iran War Theater's "Northern Front"
US and allied naval deployments are concentrated in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. The March NATO/US agreement with Baku, while building upon previous military cooperation agreements, specifically reinforces what might be described as a "Northern Front" whereby Azeri military bases including airfields and naval facilities in the Caspian sea would be used by NATO and US forces in the case of US sponsored attacks on Iran.
If this were to occur, several Central Asian countries could be drawn into the conflict, leading to a process of military escalation. The latter could also extend into a ground war in which Iran would target US, British and NATO facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nimitz Carrier Strike Group Deploys to U. S. Central Command

USS NIMITZ, At Sea (NNS) -- More than 6,000 Sailors and Marines attached to the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Carrier Strike Group (CSG) deployed from their homeport of San Diego on April 2. The Nimitz CSG will join the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) CSG and relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) CSG, currently operating in the Persian Gulf.

Nimitz’s arrival will continue the current two-carrier presence in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, demonstrating the U.S. resolve to build regional security and bring long-term stability to the region. While deployed, the Nimitz CSG will work closely with allies to support Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and to conduct Maritime Security Operations (MSO). “We’re ready to fight the war on terrorism and support troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Capt. Michael Manazir, Nimitz commanding officer.
This is the fifth deployment for Interior Communications Electrician 1st Class (SW) David Wilson, Nimitz's Combat Systems Department. He knows every deployment can be unpredictable. “You can’t really say 'this is what’s going to happen,' 'this is what you’re going to experience'; they’re all different,” said Wilson. This is the Nimitz’s third deployment to the Central Command area of operations in four years. In mid-2005, the Nimitz CSG operated in the supported operations in Iraq and throughout the region. In 2003, the carrier flew combat missions over Iraq and supported combat operations during an eight-month deployment.
The Nimitz CSG, commanded by Rear Adm. Terry Blake, is comprised of Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCG) 11, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 11 and Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 23. It includes the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz; guided-missile cruiser USS Princeton (CG 59); guided-missile destroyers USS Higgins (DDG 76), USS Chafee (DDG 90), USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), and USS Pinckney (DDG 91); two detachments from the Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) 49 “Scorpions,” and Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit 11, Det. 15.

Bush On Iran's Nuclear Ambitions : 05 April 2007

Bush On Iran's Nuclear Ambitions (MP3)
Listen to Bush On Iran's Nuclear Ambitions (MP3)
Bush On Iran's Nuclear Ambitions (Real Player) - Download Listen to Bush On Iran's Nuclear Ambitions (Real Player)
President George W. Bush was recently asked about reports concerning Iran's nuclear program: "I do want you to know how seriously we take the Iranian nuclear issue. As a matter of fact, it is the cornerstone of our Iranian policy." Mr. Bush said concern about the "Iranian intention to have a nuclear weapon" is now shared by many:
"If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would be a seriously destabilizing influence in the Middle East. And therefore we have worked to build an international coalition to try to convince the Iranians to give up their weapon, to make it clear that they have choices to make -- whether the choice be isolation, or missed opportunity to grow their economy."
Mr. Bush drew a distinction between the Iranian government and the Iranian people:
"We have no problem, no beef with the Iranian people. We value their history. We value their traditions. But their government is making some choices that will continue to isolate them and deprive them of a better economic future."
"We take the issue very seriously," said President Bush.

Can Bush Force Iran Into a Deal? by Michael Hirsh ,Newsweek

U.S. forces are massing on Iran, and soon it will be time to strike. No, not militarily—that would be the height of insanity—but diplomatically. The Americans and Europeans are close to achieving the leverage they have long sought against Tehran through a deftly managed policy of political encirclement and economic strangulation. Just two big pieces still need to fall into place: a sign from Iran that it is willing to suspend uranium enrichment, at least temporarily, and a willingness on the part of George W. Bush to take yes for an answer—and strike a deal. On the latter point, the Bush administration does seem to be shifting in tone. With the departure of several key Bush hardliners in recent months, it feels as if the regime-change fever has broken in Washington. While still talking tough, chief Iran envoy Nicholas Burns sounded almost magnanimous toward Tehran on Wednesday as he detailed the “multiple points of pressure” being applied on Iran’s leaders.
Speaking at a Rand Corp. conference on Capitol Hill, Burns said the Western allies are still very willing to offer Tehran a nearly simultaneous "suspension for suspension"—that is, the West will stop the U.N. resolution process if Iran ceases enriching—even though the Americans and Europeans are in a much stronger position than they were several months ago. Just as importantly, Burns said the United States was sensitive to Tehran’s need to save face after its leaders have spent months defiantly insisting that they would never give up their uranium-enrichment program. “We understand they have their domestic political arena” to think about, he said. “We have carefully given the Iranians ‘exit doors’” —ways to retain a civilian nuclear program while guaranteeing there would be no bomb. Burns also dismissed the still-current idea in Washington that Bush intends to attack Iran, saying the United States has “plenty of time” to pressure Tehran before it’s ready to build a nuclear bomb. How long? Perhaps extending into the next presidency, Burns said. That was quite a contrast to John Bolton, the just-departed U.N. ambassador who told reporters separately Wednesday: "I believe that ultimately the only real prospect of getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons is to change the regime." Not long ago, it was the Boltons who spoke for Bush, not the Burnses. So now it’s decision time for Iran. The U.N. Security Council is only days away from a vote on a second resolution that would hit Iran with even tougher sanctions, including a ban on arms and an expanded list of officials and companies targeted for financial and travel restrictions, like the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Using a blend of Wall Street strategy and Tony Soprano tactics, Washington continues to strong-arm major global companies into giving up their Iran business. In the last nine months, U.S. Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey told Congress this week, Washington has met with more than 40 big banks around the world to “discuss the risks of doing business with Iran.” (Translation: if you bank with the Iranians, you may suddenly find it tough opening up that branch or doing mergers and acquisitions in the world’s biggest economy, America’s.) And this week, another big link in the Western policy of encirclement dropped into place when Russia finally joined with the Americans and Europeans after months of balking at confronting Iran. With Tehran already experiencing technical setbacks at its Natanz enrichment plant—its “cascades” of centrifuges aren’t working right—Moscow announced it would not ship fuel to Iran’s prized Bushehr reactor, which Russia is building. While Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denied reports that Moscow had linked completion of Bushehr to Iranian suspension of enrichment activities, U.S. and European officials say they’ve been reassured by Russia that this is the case, and Tehran appeared to fear just that. "It is clear that Russia has stopped construction of this plant under pressure and for political reasons," Iranian state television said. While Russia attributed its action to Tehran's failure to pay up on time, Western officials say the Kremlin is finally fed up with Iran's defiance over enrichment. For Tehran, all this means that the price of its nuclear dreams has escalated dramatically in the last several months. “As the vise tightens with a second or perhaps third Security Council resolution," the political cost for Tehran’s leaders will become acute, Burns said. The proud Iranians, who see themselves as a benign regional power, have now been branded an international rogue by virtually every nation on earth except a handful of fellow rogues: Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Belarus. And Iran's political elite knows it's all largely thanks to the over-the-top rhetoric of their radical populist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is getting less popular in Tehran by the hour. One important element remains. Much of Tehran's high-handed refusal to negotiate since Ahmadinejad’s election two years ago is rooted in the Iranian hardliners’ conviction that Bush is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq. “The Iranians may think they can wait this out until the ‘surge’ plan fails,” says Trita Parsi, a Washington-based Iran expert. But if Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, succeeds in quieting things down next door, Tehran won't even have that card to play (yet another reason why the Democrats’ flagging efforts to legislate a deadline for Petraeus are foolhardy). Will Iran deal? Signals so far seem mixed. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose views are vastly more important than those of the more visible Ahmadinejad, made a veiled threat this week to kick out remaining U.N. inspectors and withdraw from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty protocol if a second U.N. resolution is passed, saying: “Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations. But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so." But outgoing U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif, a moderate who is one of Tehran’s top negotiators, has been extended in his post by a couple of months as his bosses probe the diplomatic possibilities. Speaking to the Washington Rand conference by video (he’s not allowed to leave the U.N. environs in New York), Zarif sounded peevishly skeptical about a temporary suspension of enrichment on Wednesday. Yet he did not rule it out. Nor did he say another popular compromise plan—an international consortium that would place Iran’s program under U.N. and European supervision—was out of the question. “We are prepared to accept joint ownership and joint control of [the nuclear] facilities in Iran,” Zarif said. If Bush can convert his hard-won bargaining capital into a diplomatic payoff, he might even have a shot at rescuing his presidential legacy. Currently the post-Bush landscape looks as bleak in foreign policy as any in memory. “No president will ever have handed over a worse international situation than George W. Bush,” former Clinton administration ambassador Richard Holbrooke told me recently. But if Bush completes last month’s deal committing North Korea to nuclear dismantlement—and then manages to find an accommodation that takes Iran out of the nuclear-arms business, too—presidential historians may find something else to write about beside Iraq. They could well record that this most unilateralist of first-term presidents left behind two splendid models of multilateral diplomacy in his second term.

US Policy Towards Iran : R. Nicholas Burns: Released on March 21, 2007

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Washington, DC March 21, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished members of the Committee for this opportunity to speak to you about the profound challenges posed to our national security interests by Iran. It is my pleasure to be here today with Treasury Under Secretary Levey and Commerce Acting Under Secretary Mark Foulon to discuss the strategy the United States is undertaking to address these challenges.
The topic of this hearing is one of tremendous urgency for U.S. interests in the Middle East and worldwide. We are advancing an ambitious agenda in the Middle East today through efforts to help stabilize Iraq, establish the foundation for a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, promote democracy and freedom in countries like Lebanon, and avert the spread of extremist ideologies and dangerous weapons. We will not fully succeed in any of these endeavors without successfully addressing the challenges emanating from Iran.
Under the radical leadership of President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran directly threatens vital U.S. interests in multiple arenas and through a variety of instruments – its defiance of the international community in pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability; its efforts to sow chaos and instability throughout the region, particularly in the precarious democracies of Iraq and Lebanon; repressive treatment of its own citizenry; its support for international terrorism; and its long-standing and violent rejection of any Middle East peace.
Crafting an effective response to this Iranian threat is as important as any challenge America faces in the world today. It is critical that we succeed. The endurance of the Iranian regime, the escalation of its provocative policies and abhorrent rhetoric, and the alarming stridency of its leaders mean that inaction or failure is simply not an option. For this reason, President Bush and Secretary Rice have placed the highest priority on opposing Iran’s policies across the board in the greater Middle East region.
The dangers posed by the Iranian regime are complex and diverse, and they necessitate an equally multi-faceted and sophisticated American response. We have constructed a comprehensive strategy that relies on American diplomatic leadership and a robust multilateral coalition that is designed to prevent Tehran from achieving its objectives. And as the United Nations Security Council takes up a second sanctions resolution this week and important countries undertake new efforts to exert bilateral pressure on Iran, it is clear that we are on the right track.
Our policy toward Iran is clear and focused. First and foremost, we have demonstrated to the Iranian regime that its provocative and destabilizing policies will entail painful costs for Iran, including financial hardship, diplomatic isolation, and long-term detriment to Iran’s prestige and fundamental national interests. Secondly, and equally importantly, we are working to convince the regime that another, more constructive course is available to it.
We have seen both elements of this strategy play out over the past week in New York. Consistent with our commitment to make clear to Iran that there will be costs for its defiance, I worked closely with my counterparts in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China on a second sanctions resolution, which we hope will be adopted by the full Council this week. This resolution builds on the elements of Resolution 1737 passed in December and increases targeted pressure on the Iranian regime in new areas such as arms sales, export credits and the IRGC.
While we are isolating the regime, we are also offering Tehran a diplomatic way forward. In the P5+1 context, the United States will reiterate the historic offer Secretary Rice first extended in June 2006 to engage in direct discussions with Iran “at any place and at any time,” provided Iran completely, verifiably suspends its enrichment activities. This avenue represents the best opportunity for Iran and the United States to begin resolving our differences.
The diplomatic strategy I have outlined represents the best way forward for our country. Despite the fulminations of President Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran is not impervious to financial and diplomatic pressure. It is clear to us that our strategy is paying dividends, in terms of undercutting the regime’s sense of ascendancy, unnerving its overconfident leadership, and clarifying the costs of confrontation.
In sum, this diplomatic strategy is just one facet of our policy of applying multiple points of pressure against the Iranian regime. We are also working at the United Nations and bilaterally to increase pressure on Iran to abandon its quest for a nuclear weapons capability. As a result, there is now a major international coalition of countries asking Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Furthermore, we continue our efforts to discourage the Iranian regime& rsquo;s support for terrorism and extremism, while expanding engagement with the Iranian people. Finally, we have stationed two carrier battle groups in the Gulf to reassure our friends in the Arab world that it remains an area of vital importance to us and we have taken steps to counter the destructive activities of Iran in Iraq.
Today, I would like to provide some additional detail on the steps we are pursuing to increase pressure on Iran to abandon its destabilizing policies and expand engagement with the Iranian people.
NUCLEAR ISSUE
The United States and the entire permanent membership of the UN Security Council recognize Iran’s right to peaceful, civil nuclear energy under relevant articles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, that right comes with responsibilities, paramount among them a legal obligation to forgo the pursuit of nuclear weapons and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring.
The Iranian regime has, of course, had sufficient time to clarify questions regarding its nuclear activities. Since 2003, the IAEA Board of Governors has called on Iran to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The UN Security Council called on Iran several times—both in March 2006 and again in July 2006—to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and to cooperate with the IAEA’s ongoing inspections.
Iran, however, ignored these requests as well as the generous P5+1 incentives package offered last June. Faced with the Iranian regime’s blatant disregard for its international nuclear obligations, the UN Security Council had no choice but to unanimously adopt Resolution 1737. And in the face of Iran ’s continued defiance, we expect that the Council will shortly adopt a second resolution increasing targeted pressure on the Iranian regime.
While President Ahmadi-Nejad continues to scorn the Security Council’s efforts and declare its Resolutions “torn piece of paper,” we have observed that the international community is increasingly determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. We see evidence of this in our unprecedented cooperation with our European partners at the UNSC— cooperation one country recently described as “the best in more than a decade.” We see evidence in the willingness of Russia and China to more rapidly agree to the elements for a second resolution. And we see evidence of this in the international community’s concerted efforts to both implement Resolution 1737 and cooperate on other financial pressures outside of the UNSC. I will leave it to Under Secretary Levey to address those financial pressures in more depth.
ENERGY SECTOR
In recent weeks, we have vigorously engaged relevant companies and countries at senior levels about potential investments in Iran’s oil and gas sector. In making clear our opposition to such deals, we have emphasized the negative impact they could have on international efforts to resolve the nuclear issue, as well as the potential implications under our law. Most of these deals remain in the discussion and negotiation stage. Our approaches are intended to diminish the likelihood of seeing them finalized. More broadly, Iran continues to encounter great difficulties in attracting foreign investment to its hydrocarbon sector and few foreign companies in recent years have committed to developing Iranian oil and gas fields. Some earlier agreements, notably one for developing the Azadegan oilfield, have come apart. Iran’s own behavior and policies have contributed to this situation, but ILSA/ISA has also been a part of the negative investment climate that prevails for Iran today.
We worked last year with Congress on the reauthorization and amendment of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which, thanks to the success of our diplomatic and economic efforts with respect to Libya, is now simply the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). ISA has been extremely valuable in emphasizing to foreign governments and firms our concerns about Iran and highlighting the risks and potential consequences of investing there. As I have noted, we believe that ILSA/ISA has been a factor in Iran’s lack of recent success in attracting the oil and gas investment it seeks.
BLOCKING IRAN’S REGIONAL ASPIRATIONS
We have also acted to blunt Iran’s regional ambitions. In Iraq, Iran continues to provide lethal support to select groups of Shia militants who target and kill U.S. and British troops, as well as innocent Iraqis. We have communicated our redlines to Tehran and made clear that this is unacceptable. As President Bush announced in January, our troops in Iraq will act to disrupt networks in Iraq—regardless of their nationality—which provide weapons to Iraqi groups. These actions are consistent with the mandate of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq (MNF-I), granted by the United Nations Security Council and the Iraqi Government, to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of Iraq’s security and stability. We have an absolute and indisputable obligation to defend our soldiers – and Iraq’s citizens – from such attacks. At the same time, we are supporting the Iraqi Government’s efforts to solicit international support for stabilizing Iraq. We were pleased that Iran participated in the March 10 conference in Baghdad and hope that Tehran will begin to play a constructive role in supporting a stable and secure Iraq.
Outside of Iraq we are working with France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to signal our strong support for Prime Minister Siniora’s democratically elected government in Lebanon and are working with European and regional allies to enforce the arms embargo imposed by UNSCR 1701 and to prevent Iran and Syria from rearming Hizballah. We have stationed two carrier battle groups in the Gulf to reassure our friends in the Arab world that it remains an area of vital importance to us. And at the regional level, Secretary Rice last autumn launched a series of ongoing discussions with our GCC partners, as well as Egypt and Jordan, regarding issues of shared concern, including the threat posed by Iran.
Combined with our long-term efforts to promote peace and stability in the region and reassure allies, including Israel, these steps mark the natural evolution of our efforts to demonstrate international resolve against Iran& rsquo;s disregard for international law and its aspirations to dominate the region. And they have all had an impact. Iran is now more isolated and under more intense international scrutiny.
TERRORISM
Tehran has long-been the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism; the regime was responsible for the deaths of scores of Americans in the 1980s and 1990s. As we saw just last week, Iranians were implicated in the 1994 bombing of the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) building in Buenos Aires. The United States will continue to support efforts to spotlight and bring to justice Iranians involved in terrorism, such as the Argentine Government’ s campaign for justice in the AMIA case. Additionally, recognizing Iran’s role as the central banker of global terrorism, the Departments of State and Treasury have enlisted foreign support in efforts to deny suspect Iranian individuals and entities access to funds. Through these efforts and domestic designations, we are disrupting Iran’s ability to support groups such as Hizballah and Hamas, while increasing the political costs of this support.
ENGAGING THE PEOPLE OF IRAN
As President Bush and Secretary Rice have long noted, our problems are with the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people. Part of charting a new course for U.S.-Iranian relations is intensifying our engagement with the Iranian people. While it is now not feasible for us to have formal diplomatic relations with Iran, it is within our grasp to bridge the divide between our peoples. So in addition to our diplomatic efforts to persuade Tehran to alter its foreign policy, we have launched a program to increase contacts between the American and Iranian peoples. We sent the U.S. National Wrestling Team to compete in Iran in January; we are also bringing hundreds of Iranians on exchange programs to the United States. We are encouraging American athletes, artists, religious leaders and others to visit Iran, as well, to help promote greater mutual understanding. And through intensified Persian language broadcasting efforts we are also communicating directly with the Iranian people, making clear our policies.
Simultaneously, we are continuing our efforts to support development of Iranian civil society. Iranian leaders often claims that Iran has an indisputable right to nuclear power. While we acknowledge that right—in accordance with Iran ’s NPT obligations—we also believe that the Iranian people have an indisputable right to freedom of expression, transparent judicial proceedings, and the freedom to elect leaders representing a full spectrum of viewpoints. Unfortunately, the regime’s record at home is not equal to the aspirations of the Iranian people. We are working to change this.
As a result of generous funding from Congress we have implemented a wide range of democracy, educational, and cultural programs, as well as significantly expanded our efforts to improve the free flow of information to the Iranian people. Our programs are open to all who are committed to peaceful, democratic progress in Iran. Their goal is to support different parts of Iranian society by promoting basic human rights and religious freedoms; building civil society; improving justice, accessibility and the rule of law; and promoting a deeper understanding of our culture, values, and ideas.
Given Iran’s repressive political climate, progress toward our goals has been predictably difficult. But we are moving forward, and many brave men and women are helping promote basic civil rights and the necessity of political dialogue. In the long-term, we hope that a more open political climate that encourages, rather represses, dialogue, will stimulate a change in the behavior of the Iranian Government.
CONCLUSION
The United States is committed to pursuing a diplomatic solution to the challenges posed by Iran. This will require patience and persistence.
We are making every effort to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. But that cannot happen without a change in the Iranian regime’s policies. Secretary Rice offered the Iranian Government an extraordinary opportunity, in June 2006, when she pledged to engage in direct talks alongside Russia, China, and our European partners if Iran verifiably suspends enrichment and cooperates with the IAEA. This offer remains on the table, and we will continue to make clear to the Iranian regime that the best to way to ensure its security is by complying with, not ignoring, its international nuclear obligations.

Cold War tactic to contain defiant Iran : By Farah Stockton

WASHINGTON -- The State Department and the Pentagon are quietly seeking congressional approval for significant new military sales to U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf region. The move is part of a broader American strategy to contain Iranian influence by strengthening Iran's neighbors and signaling that the United States is still a strong military player in the Middle East, despite the difficulties in Iraq.

Background
Buildup underway: The arms sales, which would come on top of a recent upgrade of U.S. Patriot antimissile interceptors in Qatar and Kuwait and the deployment of two aircraft carriers to the Gulf, could spark concerns that further military buildup in the volatile region would bring Washington closer to a confrontation with Iran.
The hardware: Current and former U.S. officials and analysts familiar with the discussions say items under consideration include sophisticated air and missile defense systems, advanced early warning radar aircraft that could detect low-flying missiles, and light coastal combat ships that could sweep the Gulf for mines and help gather underwater intelligence.
Cold War tactic
Isolate Iran: The arms sales are a Cold War-style geopolitical maneuver designed to isolate Iran by arming its neighbors against a perceived common threat.
"We should look at this in the broader context of what Secretary (Condoleezza) Rice calls the looming confrontation between extremists and moderates," Stephen Mull, the State Department's acting assistant secretary of political-military affairs, said. "We are on record as saying Syria and Iran sponsor these (extremist) forces."
May talks: The current arms sale proposals grew out of a diplomatic effort launched last May called the "Gulf Security Dialogue," in which U.S. officials sought to suggest ways to bolster the defenses of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman.
Years of U.S. effort
Early warning: The U.S. government, which has military bases in Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain, has tried for years to persuade Gulf allies to purchase a regionwide early warning radar system to collect intelligence and instantaneously detect a missile attack.
No threat: But efforts faltered as some Gulf countries argued that the systems were too expensive, and that possible attackers -- at that time, Iran and Iraq -- were not enough of a threat to warrant the systems.
That's changed: However, recent years have brought a change in attitude toward Iran, a neighbor that dwarfs most Gulf states in size and population. Now that Iran's two greatest enemies -- the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- have been toppled by the US military, Iran's stature in the region has grown.
Defiance of U.N.: Iran's increasing defiance of U.N. demands to curb its nuclear program has also provoked strong reactions in the Gulf. Sunni Arab states began to complain that Washington's wars had emboldened Iran.

Iran's Economic Decline Accelerates

The Iranians, rich in oil but poor in refining capacity, has imposed a gasoline-rationing program program and increased the prices for fuel as a result of its continuing economic collapse. The decline comes in part from increasingly effective international sanctions, but mostly result from the economic lunacy pushed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to achieve Iranian self-sufficiency:
By Ed Morrissey
>Read the Article
Posted 12/3/2007 @ 12:51:39 GMTBush Wants Iran, Syria to Follow Through BOGOTA, Colombia -- President Bush said Sunday that Iran and Syria need to follow through on pledges to help Iraq, but left the door open to additional contacts between Washington and its chief Mideast foes. more By The Associated Press

Posted 12/3/2007 @ 12:49:17 GMTIran Issues Bank Note with Nuke SymbolIran on Monday issued a bank note with a nuclear symbol in a move seen as an assertion of its national will in the face of international sanctions over its insistence on enriching uranium. more By The Associated Press

Posted 12/3/2007 @ 12:36:29 GMTIran Stands its Ground"The course of true love never did run smooth," Lysander comforted Hermia in William Shakespeare's wedding play A Midsummer Night's Dream. That's pretty much how the dialogue struggling to get started between the United States and Iran may look. more By Asian Times Online

Posted 12/3/2007 @ 10:52:19 GMTIran and Russia: The Games People PlayAesop told a fable about a fox and crow. The crow, a rather ugly crow, held a piece of cheese in its mouth. The fox, a rather wily fox, wanted that cheese. The fox had a plan. He flattered the crow, describing the beautiful voice it had. Flattered, the crow opened its mouth to sing, the cheese fell out, the fox ate the cheese, the crow was left with false flattery and an empty belly. The moral: Never trust a fox. more By Frontpagemag.com

Posted 12/3/2007 @ 10:42:3 GMTIran Gets America in its SightsWhen nations as estranged as America and Iran hold face-to-face meetings for the first time in years, choreography matters as much as the words exchanged across the table. more By Telegraph

Posted 12/3/2007 @ 10:36:39 GMTIranian Official Lashes Out at Hollywood Movie "300" for Insulting Persian CivilizationAn Iranian official on Sunday lashed out at the Hollywood movie "300" for insulting the Persian civilization, local Fars News Agency reported. Javad Shamqadri, an art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, accused the new movie of being "part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at Iranian culture", said the report. more By People's Daily Online

Posted 12/3/2007 @ 10:7:18 GMTPakistan: No Logistic Support for U.S. in War Against IranISLAMABAD -- Pakistan, calling for resolving Iranian nuclear issue through political dialogue, has said that it would not provide any base to the United States to carry out attack on Iran. more By Xinhua

Posted 12/3/2007 @ 10:0:55 GMTIran to Take Nuclear Case Directly to UNIran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is planning to respond in person to intensifying international pressure over his country's controversial nuclear programme by taking his case directly to the United Nations security council in New York, it emerged yesterday. more By The Guardian

1 Killed in Palestinian Shootout in Gaza

By IBRAHIM BARZAKAssociated Press WriterMarch 11, 2007, 12:25 AM ESTGAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- Palestinian gunmen from Hamas and Fatah exchanged fire in the Gaza Strip early Sunday, killing a local militia leader and wounding seven people in the most serious flareup of violence since a power-sharing deal between the political rivals last month.Both sides blamed each other for starting the battle in the northern town of Beit Hanoun.Hamas said a truckload of Fatah gunmen opened fire on the militant group's forces near the town's sports club, killing a Hamas field commander, Mohammed Kafarneh. Fatah said the shooting began when Hamas attacked a compound of the security forces with rocket-propelled grenades. Later, Hamas and Fatah gunmen also exchanged fire for a few minutes in Gaza City.In another incident, two Gaza fishermen were wounded when an Israeli navy vessel fired on their boat near the Gaza-Egypt border, Palestinian security officials said. The Israeli military had no immediate comment.Sunday's death was only the second since last month's Saudi Arbaia-backed Hamas-Fatah cease-fire which cleared the way for talks on setting up a Hamas-Fatah coalition government.The violence followed an incident in the West Bank on Saturday in which gunmen fired on the car of Prisoners Affairs Minister Wasfi Kabaha of Hamas, security officials said. Nobody was injured in the attack, which Hamas blamed on Palestinian security officials with ties to Fatah. Security officials said they did not know who was responsible.The Palestinian unity government was intended to halt months of fighting in which more than 130 people were killed. But tensions have remained high since the accord was announced weeks ago.Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah hopes the coalition government, to be formed within two weeks, will also help end an international boycott of the year-old Hamas government and lead to a resumption of peace talks with Israel.The international community has said it would withhold judgment until it sees the new government's political program. However, the coalition, in deference to Hamas, is unlikely to agree to the world's conditions for acceptance, including recognition of Israel.With the Hamas-Fatah coalition not yet established, little progress was expected at a meeting Sunday between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said Israel will not consider a resumption of peace talks unless it wins recognition from a new Palestinian government, and unless Palestinian militants halt rocket fire from Gaza."We are not at a phase where we're actually talking about substance," Eisin said. "We're at a point in which we're trying to build confidence between the sides."The Palestinians want to resume talks on a final peace deal which broke down more than six years ago. However, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said progress toward that goal is unlikely at the moment. "These are difficult times between us and I don't want to raise expectations," Erekat said.Abbas will ask Olmert to halt Israeli military operations in the West Bank, as part of an effort to broaden an informal cease-fire, in place in Gaza since November, Erekat said. Olmert and Abbas will also discuss Egyptian attempts to win the release of an Israeli soldier kidnapped in Gaza in June, Erekat said.Sunday's meeting is the second between Olmert and Abbas in a month. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hosted the previous talks on Feb. 19 and is expected back in the region later this month, Israel Army Radio said.

Additional Troop Increase Approved

President Agrees To Send 8,200 More To Iraq, Afghanistan
By Peter BakerWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, March 11, 2007; A01
ANCHORENA PARK, Uruguay, March 10 -- President Bush approved 8,200 more U.S. troops for Iraq and Afghanistan on top of reinforcements already ordered to those two countries, the White House said Saturday, a move that comes amid a fiery debate in Washington over the Iraq war.The president agreed to send 4,700 troops to Iraq in addition to the 21,500 he ordered to go in January, mainly to provide support for those combat forces and to handle more anticipated Iraqi prisoners. He also decided to send a 3,500-member brigade to Afghanistan to accelerate training of local forces, doubling his previous troop increase to fight a resurgent Taliban. Although officials had foreshadowed the additional forces for Iraq in recent days, the latest troop increase in Afghanistan had not been known and will bring U.S. forces there to an all-time high. The deployments underscore the challenges facing the United States in both countries and further stretch an already strained military. In Iraq particularly, the moves could fuel suspicions that a troop increase initially described as a temporary "surge" may grow larger and last longer than predicted.Bush did not comment on his decision during the second day of a six-day Latin America tour. But aides released a letter he signed Friday night aboard Air Force One as he flew to Uruguay from Brazil, asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for $3.2 billion in emergency funding to pay for the additional units. He proposed cuts in other spending to offset the cost."This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Bush said in the letter.The president's decision came as congressional Democrats are struggling to find a way to reverse direction in Iraq. Bush aides said this week that the president would veto a House Democratic spending plan that would require him to certify that the Iraqi government has met certain benchmarks by certain dates to keep U.S. forces in the country. The plan would require, under any circumstance, that troop withdrawals begin March 1, 2008, and that remaining troops be out of combat roles by Aug. 31, 2008.Pelosi blasted Bush on Saturday. "With his veto threat," she said, "the president offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General [David H.] Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily."The attention to Iraq and Afghanistan came as Bush tried to focus on restoring ties with Latin America. He flew by helicopter to a scenic, woodsy waterfront ranch here to have lunch and talk trade with Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez. After sampling Uruguayan barbecue, the president headed out on a boat excursion with Vazquez. Despite days of protests around the region, Bush was largely spared any signs of hostility other than large hand-painted graffiti facing his hotel in the capital, Montevideo, that said: "Get Out Bush the Murderer."The $3.2 billion that Bush requested in his letter to Pelosi would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police officers and 129 soldiers to man provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. It would also fund additional military equipment and efforts to reopen Iraqi state factories.
For Afghanistan, it would fund Bush's decision announced last month to extend a temporary increase of 3,200 U.S. troops there "for the foreseeable future." It would also pay for an additional 3,500-member training brigade, a move that was not previously announced.
"This is part of the effort to speed up the training and expand the size of the Afghan forces, an effort the president talked about in his Afghan/GWOT speech in February," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, using an acronym for "global war on terror." "This request for an additional brigade for training executes that policy announcement."Officials have signaled that even more forces may yet be dispatched to Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told lawmakers this week that as many as 7,000 additional support troops may be sent. And the commander for northern Iraq said he needs more troops to quell sectarian violence.Petraeus seems inclined to extend the mission beyond the six-month time frame envisioned by his predecessor, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. Casey and other officials had said they hoped to see results from the troop increase by August, when more brigades could begin to withdraw. But Petraeus said this week that he thinks it will "need to be sustained, certainly for some time well beyond the summer."

Qaeda's Zawahri criticizes Hamas over Mecca deal 7 minutes ago

7 minutes ago
DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri lashed out at the leadership of Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Sunday over its Saudi-brokered deal with the U.S.-backed Fatah' ."The leadership of Hamas surrendered to the Jews most of Palestine" to keep heading the Palestinian government, said the militant leader in an audio statement aired by Al Jazeera television. "It has fallen in the quagmire of surrender."

Are Farsi-language Broadcasts Helping?

March 09, 2007 The Washington Times Editorials/Op-Ed
Today, as Washington grapples with the threats posed by Iranian support for terrorism and efforts to develop nuclear weapons, it appears that American policy-makers are being forced to choose between very bad options: 1) taking military action against Iranian nuclear sites and other regime targets, or 2) continuing to push for passage of largely unenforceable U.N. resolutions and hoping that if the regime develops nuclear weapons, we would somehow be able to use some form of "containment" to deal with the problem. We find ourselves in this untenable position today due in part to our neglect of alternatives such as the development of radio stations oriented towards taking the American message directly to the Iranian people. In his position as ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Government Information, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, has made it his mission to reform what he views as a largely dysfunctional system of broadcasting to Iran. In a letter to President Bush last month, Mr. Coburn made a powerful case that Radio Farda, which broadcasts music and other entertainment programs to Iran, and the Voice of America's Farsi-language service "may actually be harming American interests rather than helping." As chairman of the subcommittee last year, Mr. Coburn held a hearing on the Iranian nuclear question, in which lawmakers heard testimony from Amirabbas Fakhravar, an Iranian dissident who wants the United States to publicly support regime change in his country. Imprisoned in 2002 after writing a book denouncing Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he managed to escape Iran three years later. Mr. Fakhravar told the subcommittee in July that Radio Farda and VOA "are presently giving more assistance to the regime than to the dissident movement" in Iran by touting fraudulent efforts to institute reforms within the Islamist regime. Subsequent complaints from native Farsi speakers who monitor U.S. broadcasts to Iran and a report commissioned by the State Department and National Security Council mirrored Mr. Fakhravar's testimony. The federal Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) disputes the criticisms and periodically provides examples of broadcasts it describes as balanced. But according to Mr. Coburn, the board has not conducted a systematic review of all content broadcast into Iran and is limited in its ability to oversee broadcasting content because there are no English-language transcripts of U.S. international broadcasting. Along with his letter to the president, Mr. Coburn attached several transcripts of VOA's Farsi-language coverage of the State of the Union address. One of the two guests provided by VOA, Dr. Mansour Farhang, "uses a Farsi term best described as 'baseless statement' to describe your State of the Union speech," Mr. Coburn wrote. "Dr. Farhang's hostility is further expressed when he describes your Iraq policy as having 'no connection to reality.' " Dr. Farhang then went on to blame the United States for increased violence and instability in Iraq. The only other guest, who was supposed to balance the criticism, said he agreed with this harsh assessment of U.S. policy. All of this is particularly tragic in view of the fact that the Iranian government would appear to be quite vulnerable to the kinds of pressures that U.S. radio broadcasts, properly done, could help generate. Public-opinion polls taken in recent years suggest that an overwhelming majority of Iranians admire the United States and/or want to bring down the Islamist regime in Tehran, and despite a brutal secret-police, visitors to the country frequently say they have little trouble finding Iranians who want to be rid of clerical rule. Iran has been convulsed by unrest and violence, particularly in the southeastern Baluchistan region, where last month Sunni radicals killed 11 members of the elite Revolutionary Guards in a bus bombing. On Feb. 19, one week after the bombing, the regime televised the hanging of a man it said was responsible for the attack. It would be a positive thing if BBG were offering Iranians a real alternative -- something better than the likes of both Dr. Farhang and public hangings. But, that does not appear to be happening today. As Mr. Coburn wrote in his letter to the president: "Our international broadcasting needs serious management and accountability reforms. Given the international challenges and threats to our national security, I believe it is vital that this important public diplomacy does not undermine your role as our lead diplomat. The status quo should not continue." And if BBG thinks it is getting a bum rap from Mr. Coburn, it would do well to conduct its own comprehensive study of its Farsi-language broadcasts and set the record straight.

IRAN: 'BIG FISH' GONE MISSING By AMIR TAHERI

'A VERY big fish" - so Tehran sources describe former Deputy Defense Minister Ali-Reza Askari (sometimes called "Asghari" in the West), who disappeared in Istanbul on Sunday. Askari's disappearance fits an emerging pattern. Since December, the United States and its allies appear to have moved onto the offensive against the Islamic Republic's networks of influence in the Middle East:
* Jordan has seized 17 Iranian agents, accused of trying to smuggle arms to Hamas, and deported them quietly after routine debriefing.
* A number of Islamic Republic agents have been identified and deported in Pakistan and Tunisia.
* At least six other Iranian agents have been picked up in Gaza, where they were helping Hamas set up armament factories.
* In the past three months, some 30 senior Iranian officials, including at least two generals of Revolutionary Guards, have been captured in Iraq.
*All but five of the Islamic Republic agents seized in Iraq appear to have been released. One of those released was Hassan Abbasi, nicknamed "the Kissinger of Islam," who is believed to be President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's strategic advisor.
*Among those still held by the Americans is one Muhammad Jaafari Sahraroudi, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander wanted by the Austrian police in connection with the murder of three Iranian Kurdish leaders in Vienna in 1989.

All this looks like a message to Tehran that its opponents may be moving on to the offensive in what looks like a revival of tactics used in the Cold War. But let us return to the "big fish."



A retired two-star general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Askari had just led a military mission to Damascus, the Syrian capital. He was making a private "shopping stopover" in Turkey on his way back to Tehran. The Iranian mission's task was to lay the foundations for a Syrian armament industry, licensed to manufacture Iranian-designed weapons. The 30 or so experts that had accompanied Askari remained in Syria to work out the technical details.
According to some reports, Askari had stopped over in Istanbul to meet with an unidentified Syrian arms dealer who lives in Paris. Having at first denied reports of the general's disappearance, Tehran authorities eventually came out with a confirmation. The Islamic Republic's police chief, Gen. Ismail Ahmadi-Muqaddam, issued a statement Tuesday claiming that the missing general had been abducted by a Western intelligence service and taken to "a country in northern Europe."

Foreign Ministry sources in Tehran, however, said that Askari might have defected, possibly to the United States, where he has relatives. Some reports in the Iranian and Arab media suggest that the Israeli secret service Mossad and the CIA are behind Askari's disappearance. Israel has denied involvement in the general's disappearance, but The London Daily Telegraph speculated on Monday that Askari could have been abducted by Israel to shed light on the whereabouts of Israel Air Force Lt.-Col. Ron Arad, missing since 1986, who might have been held at one point by Iran. Askari was involved in a deal to transfer Arad to Tehran after his capture by the Lebanese Hezbollah. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was quoted Monday as saying Iran was "taking necessary steps" to solve the case: "A director-general from the [foreign] ministry has traveled to Turkey . . . We have asked Turkey to investigate Askari's case." According to Iranian sources, Askari, in his late 50s, joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRG) at its very start in 1979. He was an associate of Mostafa Chamran, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Iranian origin who returned to Iran when the mullahs seized power in 1979 and helped found the IRG. When Chamran was appointed defense minister two years later, Askari became one of his advisers. Always in the shadows, Askari was in charge of a program to train foreign Islamist militants as part of Tehran's strategy of "exporting" the Khomeinist revolution.
In 1982-83, Askari (along with Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Mohatashami-Pour) founded the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah and helped set up its first military units. The two men supervised the 1983 suicide attacks on the U.S. Embassy and on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut - killing more than 300 Americans, including 241 Marines. Iranian sources say Askari was part of a triumvirate of Revolutionary Guard officers that controlled Hezbollah's armed units until the end of the '90s. Askari led the 500-man Iranian military mission in Beirut from 1998 to 2000 before returning home to work for the Strategic Defense Procurement Committee. In that capacity, he often traveled abroad to negotiate arms deals. Tehran sources claim that Askari was also involved in Iran's controversial nuclear program, which, although presented as a civilian project, is controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. They also say that last November he was appointed a member of the Strategic Defense Planning Commission set up by Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Guide." Indeed, Iran is rife with rumors about the case: Askari has been transferred to Romania, where he is being debriefed by the Americans; he had documents with him, mostly related to Iran's military purchases abroad; Israeli efforts to see him (in connection with his years of running Hezballah) have so far failed to meet with success . . . Whether he defected or was abducted, Askari is a big catch with a mine of information about the activities of the Revolutionary Guard and its elite arm, the Quds Corps, which controls Arab and Turkish radical groups financed by Tehran. Last month, the United States accused the Quds Corps of supplying special projectiles to terrorists in Iraq to kill GIs.

Former Iranian Defense Official Talks to Western Intelligence

By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 8, 2007;

A former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guard has left his country and is cooperating with Western intelligence agencies, providing information on Hezbollah and Iran's ties to the organization, according to a senior U.S. official. Ali Rez Asgari disappeared last month during a visit to Turkey. Iranian officials suggested yesterday that he may have been kidnapped by Israel or the United States. The U.S. official said Asgari is willingly cooperating. He did not divulge Asgari's whereabouts or specify who is questioning him, but made clear that the information Asgari is offering is fully available to U.S. intelligence.

Asgari served in the Iranian government until early 2005 under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Asgari's background suggests that he would have deep knowledge of Iran's national security infrastructure, conventional weapons arsenal and ties to Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Iranian officials said he was not involved in the country's nuclear program, and the senior U.S. official said Asgari is not being questioned about it. Former officers with Israel's Mossad spy agency said yesterday that Asgari had been instrumental in the founding of Hezbollah in the 1980s, around the time of the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. Iran's official news agency, IRNA, quoted the country's top police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqaddam, as saying that Asgari was probably kidnapped by agents working for Western intelligence agencies. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Asgari was in the United States. Another U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, denied that report and suggested that Asgari's disappearance was voluntary and orchestrated by the Israelis. A spokesman for President Bush's National Security Council did not return a call for comment. The Israeli government denied any connection to Asgari. "To my knowledge, Israel is not involved in any way in this disappearance," said Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry.

An Iranian official, who agreed to discuss Asgari on the condition of anonymity, said that Iranian intelligence is unsure of Asgari's whereabouts but that he may have been offered money, probably by Israel, to leave the country. The Iranian official said Asgari was thought to be in Europe. "He has been out of the loop for four or five years now," the official said. Israeli and Turkish newspapers reported yesterday that Asgari disappeared in Istanbul shortly after he arrived there on Feb. 7. Iran sent a delegation to Turkey to investigate his disappearance and requested help from Interpol in locating him.

Former Mossad director Danny Yatom, who is now a member of Israel's parliament, said he believes Asgari defected to the West. "He is very high-caliber," Yatom said. "He held a very, very senior position for many long years in Lebanon. He was in effect commander of the Revolutionary Guards" there. Ram Igra, a former Mossad officer, said Asgari spent much of the 1980s and 1990s overseeing Iran's efforts to support, finance, arm and train Hezbollah. The State Department lists the Shiite Lebanese group as a terrorist organization. "He lived in Lebanon and, in effect, was the man who built, promoted and founded Hezbollah in those years," Igra told Israeli state radio. "If he has something to give the West, it is in this context of terrorism and Hezbollah's network in Lebanon."

The organization, led by Hasan Nasrallah, is believed to have been behind several attacks against U.S., Jewish and Israeli interests worldwide, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans, and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed more than 80 people. Israel fought a bloody, month-long war with Hezbollah last summer in south Lebanon after the group seized two Israeli soldiers. The soldiers have not been returned and their fate is unknown. Other Israeli soldiers have vanished in Lebanon during decades of conflict along the countries' shared border, most notably an Israeli airman named Ron Arad. Yatom said it is possible Asgari "knows quite a lot about Ron Arad."In a January briefing to Congress, then-Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte described Hezbollah as a growing threat to U.S. interests. "As a result of last summer's hostilities, Hezbollah's self-confidence and hostility toward the United States as a supporter of Israel could cause the group to increase its contingency planning against United States interests," Negroponte said. U.S. intelligence officials said they had no evidence that Hezbollah was actively planning attacks but noted that the organization has the capacity to do so if it feels threatened.

What's going on ?

In a raid, some 30 military jeeps surrounded a in Ramella building with troops firing stun grenades and shooting in the air while calling on the militants to surrender. They then entered the compound and seized the 18 men.Among those taken was Khalil Shilo, a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent offshoot of Abbas' Fatah movement. Shilo had been on the run for seven years, since the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising in 2000.

MIDDLE EAST: HAMAS OFFERS 'COMPLETE' CEASEFIRE

Tel Aviv, 7 March (AKI) - Hamas is willing to offer Israel a total ceasefire in exchange for the support of the Jewish state in ending an international boycott of the Palestinian Authority government, a senior official of the Islamist Palestinian movement has told an Israeli newspaper. Tel Aviv daily Haaretz did not identify the official who on Wednesday was quoted as saying that the Palestinians "will offer a promise from Hamas and Fatah of a total cease-fire with Israel, including a complete halt to Qassam [rocket] fire and suicide bombings".The offer would be delivered by Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday. However, the Hamas official warned that if Israel presses for a continuation of the international boycott and refuses to work with the unity government, the existing partial cease-fire will be in danger. According, to Haaretz, Olmert plans to use the meeting to urge Abbas to ensure that the new Palestinian government, which is currently being formed, accepts the condition set by the Quartet group of international negotiators: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and honouring previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.Meanwhile tension continues to accompany the run-up to the Abbas-Olmert meeting with Israeli troops on Wednesday raiding the Palestinian military headquarters in Ramallah and arrested 18 people who have been described as militants who had sought shelter there.In the raid, some 30 military jeeps surrounded the building with troops firing stun grenades and shooting in the air while calling on the militants to surrender. They then entered the compound and seized the 18 men.Among those taken was Khalil Shilo, a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent offshoot of Abbas' Fatah movement. Shilo had been on the run for seven years, since the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising in 2000.

HOT NEWS OFF THE PRESS

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 20:17:4 GMTUS Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran
America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme. In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions. more By Sunday Telegraph

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 20:13:28 GMTBush Camp Between a Rock and a Hard Place
The Bush administration will be taking a massive gamble if it presses ahead with plans to attend a regional conference on the future of Iraq later this month. more By Daily Telegraph

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 19:55:32 GMTWashington's Mixed Signals on Iran
One day the Bush administration is bashing Iran, pushing U.N. Security Council sanctions, cutting off its credit, arresting its nationals and sending more warships into the Persian Gulf. Then, practically the next day it seems, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is announcing plans for U.S. and Iranian diplomats to meet in Baghdad to discuss cooperating to quell the carnage in Iraq. more By Time Magazine

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 19:3:28 GMTBolton Calls for `Regime Change' in Iran, Chastises Europeans
John Bolton, the former American envoy to the United Nations, said the U.S. should pursue ``regime change'' in Iran because European governments refuse to back sanctions tough enough to halt the suspected Iranian nuclear-bomb program. more By Bloomberg

Posted 1/3/2007 @ 18:21:4 GMTThe Negotiations Hoax
Talking with Iran—and we’ve done plenty of it—has gotten us nothing. more By National Review Online

Bolton Calls for `Regime Change' in Iran, Chastises Europeans

By Janine Zacharia and Bill Varner
March 1 (Bloomberg) -- John Bolton, the former American envoy to the United Nations, said the U.S. should pursue ``regime change'' in Iran because European governments refuse to back sanctions tough enough to halt the suspected Iranian nuclear-bomb program. ``I believe that either regime change in Iran or, as a last resort, military action is the only thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons,'' Bolton said in an interview today in Washington.
Bolton, a 58-year-old former arms-control official, said the Bush administration had allowed Britain, France and Germany to ``screw around'' in nuclear talks. The diplomacy has gone on for ``three and a half years, and that allowed the Iranians to make enormous progress on their nuclear-weapons program,'' he said. President George W. Bush, who labeled Iran and North Korea part of an ``axis of evil'' in 2002, has said their nuclear programs could pose a direct threat to the U.S., and that either nation might hand over atomic weapons to terrorists. The U.S. has pursued negotiated settlements with both countries while crafting UN sanctions aimed at cutting off nuclear trade with them. Bolton left the UN in December after failing to win congressional support to extend his tenure. He has emerged as a gadfly, criticizing the administration for its strategy on nuclear proliferation. He assailed Bush and his diplomats on Iran and for a deal with North Korea to trade energy aid for the closing of nuclear-arms-related facilities. Bolton said that accord is doomed to fail because of North Korea's record of cheating on similar arrangements.
`Fruitless' Effort
Broadly, Bolton said any negotiation with either North Korea or Iran to persuade them to abandon their nuclear ambitions won't work. ``Unless you're prepared to believe that the Iranians are voluntarily going to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the idea of pursuing negotiations is ultimately going to be fruitless,'' Bolton said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pronounced ah-ma- deen-ah-ZHAD, on Feb. 25 compared Iran's nuclear development to an unstoppable train and said there would be no turning back. Iran ``threw away a while ago the reverse gear and brakes of this train,'' he said, in remarks carried by the state-run Iranian Students News Agency. Iranian officials insist the nuclear push is for commercial power generation, not weapons.
Intelligence Gap
Bolton, now with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said one drawback of any military strike on Iran is that the Iranians may have a secret uranium-enrichment facility that weapons inspectors will never find. ``The downside of the military option is that you would incur all of the costs of having undertaken military action but potentially not gotten the benefits of decisively breaking the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more points,'' he said. ``What that says is we need better intelligence about what the Iranians are actually up to beyond what is already in the public domain.'' Because of all of this, the U.S. needs to tap the ``substantial Iranian diaspora,'' which the U.S. is ``not using as effectively as we might,'' and ``exploit'' the dissatisfaction inside Iran to topple the cleric-led government that has ruled the country since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Bolton said. The United Nations Security Council voted 15 to 0 on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program for the first time, including a ban on acquisition of materials and technology that might be used to build an atomic bomb.
The U.S. was forced to agree to a watered-down version of what it sought in negotiations in the Security Council.
Enrichment Expands
Since the resolution's passage, Iran expanded its capacity to enrich uranium, defying a Security Council demand to halt its atomic work, and plans to install 3,000 centrifuges designed to produce nuclear fuel at its underground facility in Natanz by May, according to a Feb. 22 International Atomic Energy Agency report. The Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany met in London on Feb. 26 to discuss a draft resolution that would impose further penalties on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. Germany's envoy to the UN said Feb. 23 there should be only ``modest'' expansion of UN sanctions. Bolton said European reticence reflects a core problem: that those governments are ``overcome by their economic interests'' in the Iranian market. Countries and companies from Spain to Malaysia are pursuing long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran, rebuffing Bush's campaign to turn Iran into an economic pariah.
Bolton, who blasted the agreement the U.S., China, South Korea, Japan and Russia reached with North Korea that requires the country to scrap its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program in return for energy aid, criticized scheduled talks next week.
Talks Set
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's meeting with North Korea in New York, aimed at normalizing relations between the countries, won't lead Kim Jong Il's dictatorship to abandon nuclear weapons, Bolton said. Eventually the failure of diplomacy to disarm North Korea will force the U.S. to consider a military strike, he said. Hill is set to meet March 5 and 6 with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan. ``This is all a part of re-legitimizing them,'' Bolton said of the North Korean dictatorship. Hill, the U.S. envoy who negotiated the North Korea deal, said Feb. 22, ``We ultimately decided that, even though North Korea does need to make a strategic decision to get out of this nuclear weapons business, to realize that decision is going to require a step-by-step process.'' Bolton expressed concern that the new deal doesn't address North Korea's chemical weapons arsenal. He said the U.S. government estimates North Korea has up to 12,000 artillery tubes along the demilitarized zone with South Korea and that an initial attack on South Korea would be with chemical weapons.