First the good news. Russia still thinks a deal can be struck with Iran regarding guarantees and protocols to ensure that it’s nuclear program will not be used to obtain nuclear weapons:
Russia’s top nuclear official expressed confidence Saturday that the U.N. atomic watchdog agency still could resolve the international standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, a Russian news agency reported.
Resolution before the International Atomic Energy Agency could avert U.N. Security Council sanctions or the use of force against the Islamic republic.
During a visit to Iran, Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko said resolving the persistent questions about the intent of Iran’s nuclear program “within the framework of the IAEA is absolutely realistic,” according to ITAR-Tass.
Official statements by Iran’s government (released through its embassy in Spain and first reported by Iran’s official news agency, IRNA) echoed the Russian optimism regarding a peaceful resolution of the “Iranian nuclear crisis”:
LONDON, February 25 (IranMania) – Iran confirmed in a statement it is ready to guarantee its peaceful nuclear program through secure channels, IRNA reported.
Iran is only for peaceful nuclear energy within the framework of the regulations and articles stipulated in the international treaties, a statement published by I.R.I embassy in Madrid stressed.
“The inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (which are currently being done), making use of advanced centrifuges with limited scale (as suggested by some American and British scientists) and contribution of interested countries in Iran’s nuclear program are regarded as the options Iran recommends as its best guarantee to develop its peaceful nuclear program.
[…]
There are some ways showing Iran is not after nuclear program with military purposes, said the statement, adding Iran will send the additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to the Majlis (parliament) for final ratification should its mentioned guarantees are (sic) accepted.
The European Union (EU) may provide new ways on Iran’s nuclear case based on legal strategies respecting the NPT articles should it adopt an independent way and not to follow the US policies, the statement recommended.
Iran, the statement notes, has announced that it is ready to hold talks and cooperate with all governments, except the Zionist regime, within the mentioned framework.
Sounds very reasonable. If I’m reading this right, Iran is suggesting that it is willing to comply again with the IAEA’s additional protocol regarding Iran’s nuclear program, and to provide additional security guarantees to be determined after negotiations with the European Union. The additional protocol (which required frequent inspections on shortened notice by the IAEA) began in 2003, and was the reason that the IAEA was able to confirm Iran’s operation of undeclared nuclear facilities. Iran had suspended the IAEA’s rights under the additional protocol earlier this year in response to pressure against its decision to process small amounts of enriched uranium at its declared facility in Natanz. This earlier story, highlighting an interview with former weapons inspector David Albright, gives further details on what the IAEA’s additional protocol entails.
(Read more below the fold)
Now its certainly a possibility that Iran is merely trying to split off the Europeans from the United States on this issue. Europe may, after all, be more willing to allow Iran to continue operating it’s nascent nuclear program with these additional security guaranties and protocols. Nonetheless, it seems like a very reasonable option. Iran wants to retain its nuclear program for a number of reasons, including national pride, and as a lever in the event it feels threatened by Israel or the United States. However, under IAEA supervision, and whatever other guarantees Iran negotiates, we could easily know when Iran began to move beyond a peaceful use of nuclear technology to military use. That may not square with the Bush administration’s desire to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program entirely, but then a military assault is unlikely to derail it entirely also. I personally would prefer the diplomatic route, and I therefore see these statements by Iran as very positive.
But, as always seems to be the case, there is also plenty of “bad news” to report. Like this story:
Iranian advisor: We’ll strike Dimona in response to U.S. attack
If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel’s main nuclear facility.
Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area.
Note the bellicosity, and also note the source: an Iranian military spokesperson. Probably not surprising the Iran’s military would issue such a threat, but it’s still chilling to actually consider the implications. An attack on Israel would surely lead to a broader war in the Middle East that would have catastrophic consequences for the entire world. Bluff or no, this is a very alarming development.
And, not surprisingly, Iran’s bellicosity is matched by that of our own President:
In Washington on today, President Bush made no reference to the specific development [Note: this refers to Iran’s open enrichment of uranium using a small scale cascade of 10 centrifuges], but once again branded Iran the world’s primary sponsor of terrorism, and warned that the United States would never let the country develop nuclear weapons.
“A nontransparent society that is the world’s premier state sponsor of terror cannot be allowed to possess the world’s most dangerous weapons,” he said in a speech defending his strategy in fighting terrorism.
Doesn’t sound if there’s any room for negotiation from the Bush administration, does it? It’s either “my way or the highway”, the usual stance that Bush takes in confrontations that could result in military conflict. One can only hope that Russia and the EU, through negotiations with Iran, can find a way to forestall Bush’s propensity to seek a military solution to conflicts with Islamic opponents.
One hopes that Bush is merely pursuing the stick portion of a joint operation that involves carrots. I’m tired of the U.S. being the ‘heavy’ or ‘bad cop’, but it makes some sense. It’s the track record that gives me no faith of a coherent and coordinated strategy here.
Here is the contradiction coming up again that I’ve been trying to figure out.
Do you honestly think that Iran is the top sponsor of terrorism and if they pose a threat to the US in the near future?
No, of course not.
Iraq was the biggest sponsor when they were in Bush’s sights. Then Syria for a bit, now Iran.
It’s ludicrous.
So, essentially, Iran doesn’t pose any serious threat to us, but possibly to Israel, right?
How much of wanting to stop Iran’s nuclear progress is due to the business threat they pose as competition in the energy provider industry?
I don’t know. Jerome doesn’t think they pose that big a threat with their oil bourse, but others seem to freak out at the mention of it.
As for being a threat to Israel, I don’t see that either. Iran is, at best 5 to 10 years away from any bomb, assuming they fast track development.
You have to remember that there are competing factions in Iran’s government. The new President represents one faction, but most of the mullahs are less aggressive re: foreign policy issues than he is. He doesn’t have their full support, and his position is much more limited in terms of executive authority than our own dear leader.
Here’s where I differ with you Steven. Forget today, but ever since the Iranian revolution we have been fighting a covert war against Iran. And it has been very two sided. They blow up our base in Lebanon, and our base in Saudi Arabia, we blow an airline out of the sky, they blow an airliner out of the sky, they lay mines in the straights, we bomb their naval boats, they torture of CIA Beirut Chief-of-Station to death over several days and mail the audio to Langley, we blow up a truck bomb and kill 300 people, they do something else in return.
The Iranians have indeed been the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East.
But, of course, so have we, since we have retaliated straight down the line.
I have no reason to believe that Iran wishes to escalate the conflict from what it has been for a very long time. But I can say this: guys like Larry Johnson and Pat Lang that spent years in the intelligence agencies trying to figure out how to free our Iranian (Lebanon) held hostages and know people that were tortured and killed by the Iranians are still pissed. It isn’t just BushCo. that has settles to score.
That is why Iran’s nuclear program is so dangerous. Because Washington has a broad consensus that Iran cannot be trusted. And while money and troops may be lacking to take the fight to Iran, the will is definitely there.
It’s an ugly history. And we ought to reconsider whether we want to continue to go down this road. Because it doesn’t look like we can win.
The trouble with this is when it’s possible to see through the smoke and mirrors, it appears all of that violence came from the same people appearing to be two sides.
they aren’t the same people.
Rather they are people that share a lot of common characteristics.
If anything has changed it is the focus on terrorism has replaced the focus on communism and capitalism.
But, when it comes to Iran, they have been trying to export their revolution since 1979. They started to chill out in the late 1990’s, but the Iranian influence in Lebanon was real. And we fought each other like cats and dogs.
It looks like the Iranians are winning the battle, but the question for us is, what were we hoping to accomplish in opposing them?
We need to step back and think about that. Because we are not succeeding according to any matrix I can come up with.
It all has the feel of manufactured propaganda from one side or the other.
This is not propaganda though, Rumi.
And neither is this. Or this.
No one has consistently kicked our ass since 1979 to 2001 than the Iranians.
There is plenty of propaganda and misinformation on both sides. But there is also genuine bloodshed carried out by exactly the people that history says were responsible.
It’s all part of a pattern of propaganda and covert control through killing. The people who are in position to stop it, don’t. That can only mean they want it to continue and in that way, they are an active part of it.
Boo, we have been in a reactive mode with Iran for some time. Imagine if we had engaed them more. It worked with China after all, who we discovered really weren’t as politically monolithic as we imagined at the height of the cold war. It could have worked with Iran, and indeed, I think it did for a while.
There was a softening in the 90’s under Clinton, but Bush and his policies of confrontation and military aggression effectively ended that. Iran isn’t politically monolithic, just as we are not, but aggressive posturing on both sides only encourages hardliners in the other country to react with equal aggression.
Is Iran’s nuclear program a concern? Sure, but not a present or very serious concern. Iran is nowhere near making a bomb. They are currently conducting a small scale 10 centrifuge cascade research project to enrich a small amount of uranium. They are a long way away from large scale production for nuclear weapons which would require thousands of centrifuges arranged in a complicated cascade. The technological hurdles to doing that are still quite significant.
Bush is inflating Iran’s current nuclear program as a threat way out of proportion to its actual capability to effect our security. He’s doing it solely, in my opinion, for his own political and geopolitical purposes. To raise Iran to the level of an imminent threat to American or even Israeli security is ludicrous.
Yeah, we agree on the big picture.
I am just making a couple of points about the context. I think we really need to have a handle on the strength (rhetorically and emotionally) of the simple sentence: “They want to wipe Israel off the map and they want a nuclear bomb.”
When the President says that there is no simple rebuttal. And on top of it, our country is crawling with guys just itching to exact some revenge on Iran for one thing or another that they did in the last 27 years.
I don’t know how we tackle this problem, but I think we need to acknowledge that there is a history with Iran that didn’t exist with Iraq. Specifically, there is a history of Iranian sponsored anti-American terrorism.
That at least makes more sense. It still leaves the possible solution of traveling the enriched uranium as one of the most dangerous outcomes.
Boo, if there’s one thing we should have learned Bush doesn’t play bad cop. He just is the bad cop.
that Israel should have a right to not just nuke power but nuke weapons, while Iran shouldn’t? Anybody that thinks this evil genie can be kept in the bottle forever is just plain nuts.
If Iran is looking for energy independence, is there any good reason to not try to help implement solar power? It seems from their location, this would be a good match.
I don’t have the details of Iran’s climate, but much of it is mountainous terrain. I have no idea about solar. As for nuclear energy, I think they see it as a source of national pride and as a security issue. You have to remember that a largely fundamentalist Sunni country, Pakistan, is the only Islamic country with the bomb, and Israel has the other nuclear capability. The Saudis, Jordan and Egypt are all unfriendly to varying degrees as well. Plus they have security concerns re: the US and Russia (which is likely why the have done deals with Russia for nuclear technology and with China for oil). From their perspective, we are far more of a threat to them than they are to us.
They sell electricity to neighboring countries too. They have reciprocal deals to offset climate demands in different seasons. This can take some of the effect out of Russia’s move to freeze citizens in the dead of winter. Another example is the sale of electricity to Iraq that directly affects sales by US/coalition owned interests