The Atlantic covers news and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international and life on the official site of The Atlantic Magazine.
Please read http://facebook.com/jewishcurrentevents
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Iranian leader vows to cut out 'cancer' of Israel
Iranian leader vows to cut out 'cancer' of Israel
Instead of this blog, please read http://facebook.com/jewishcurrentevents
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Iranian President: End of US Supremacy Imminent
TEHRAN (FNA, 2/18/2010) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed that the US would soon have to face the end of its supremacy due to the country's wrong approaches towards international issues. | | |
"The US supremacy is melting away just like snow in front of the sun," Ahmadinejad said in a meeting with the Belarusian Foreign Minister Sergei Martynov in Tehran on Wednesday.
This means that in the near future the political trend of the world will change and a great transformation will take place.
"Mr. Obama and its friends or even his rivals cannot change the trend, so we should become ready for the changes in the future," the Iranian president stated.
----
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8811290671
Friday, September 18, 2009
Ahmadinejad: Confronting Israel is a national [and religious] duty
By The Associated Press and Reuters September 18, 2009
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday the Holocaust was a "lie" and a pretext to create a Jewish state that Iranians had a religious duty to confront.
"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of annual anti-Israel Quds Day rally.
"Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty," the Iranian president said.
By The Associated Press and Reuters September 18, 2009
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday the Holocaust was a "lie" and a pretext to create a Jewish state that Iranians had a religious duty to confront.
"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of annual anti-Israel Quds Day rally.
"Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty," the Iranian president said.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Diplomats: Iran has means to test bomb in 6 months
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 5:56 PM EDT, July 17, 2009
VIENNA - Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic program while advancing those activities to the stage that the country would have the means to test a weapon within six months, diplomats told The Associated Press Friday.
The diplomats emphasized that there were no indications of plans for such a nuclear test, saying it was highly unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West -- and chances of Israeli attack -- by embarking on such a course.
But they said that even as Iran expands uranium enrichment, which can create fissile nuclear material, it is resisting International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to increase surveillance of its enrichment site meant to keep pace with the plant's increased size and complexity.
More
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 5:56 PM EDT, July 17, 2009
VIENNA - Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic program while advancing those activities to the stage that the country would have the means to test a weapon within six months, diplomats told The Associated Press Friday.
The diplomats emphasized that there were no indications of plans for such a nuclear test, saying it was highly unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West -- and chances of Israeli attack -- by embarking on such a course.
But they said that even as Iran expands uranium enrichment, which can create fissile nuclear material, it is resisting International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to increase surveillance of its enrichment site meant to keep pace with the plant's increased size and complexity.
More
Monday, June 8, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
TIP
Twelve Ways to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons without War
From: The Israel Project, online at www.theisraelproject.org June 3, 2009
Iran is moving steadfastly toward acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons. Last month it successfully test-fired a solid-fuel missile with a range of 1,200 miles – a weapons delivery system able to reach most countries in the Middle East and some in Europe. The world does not have a lot of time to prevent Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, from getting these weapons. It will take the will of key countries to stop Iran. Following are twelve ideas – carrots and sticks – that can be used to persuade Iran’s leaders that it is in their interest to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and support of terror – without military action or regime change. All peaceful means must be used; at the same time, all options should be left on the table. Nothing would be more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons.
1. Cut off the sale of gasoline to Iran: The biggest stick the international community can wield remains Iran’s dependence on imported gasoline. Iran has not developed enough capacity to refine its crude oil into gasoline. It therefore imports 40 percent of the gasoline it needs – almost all of it from Swiss, Dutch, French, British and Indian companies. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rationed gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests broke out, forcing him to end the rationing. These European and Indian governments should stop companies based in their countries from selling gasoline to Iran.
2. Ban investments in Iran’s energy sector: In addition to cutting off gasoline sales, the international community, led by the United Sates, should provide incentives to foreign banks and companies to eliminate investments in Iran’s energy sector. This would prevent foreign oil companies from investing in Iran’s oil industry.
3. Eliminate the purchase of oil from Iran: Iran derives an estimated 85 percent of its revenue from its oil sales. Iran's leaders use oil revenues to subsidize heavily the prices of gasoline, food, housing and other necessities. Clearly, a severe reduction in these revenues would have a strong impact on Iran’s people and leaders.
4. Sustain international pressure on foreign banks and oil companies to halt their dealings with Iran's energy sector: International pressure on foreign banks and oil companies already has led major firms worldwide, such as Germany's Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, England's HSBC, Credit Suisse and Royal Dutch Shell, to halt or limit their business with Iran.
5. Freeze Iranian bank assets and impose sanctions on Iranian entities linked to its nuclear program: In June 2008, all of the EU's 27 member states agreed to freeze any assets held in their jurisdictions by Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned bank which has been labeled a nuclear proliferator by the EU, US and Australia for its role in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program. In March 2009, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 companies linked to Bank Melli. In February 2009, officials from France, Britain and Germany issued a list of 34 Iranian entities allegedly linked to Iran’s nuclear or biological weapons programs. Measures such as these must be broadened.
6. End World Bank contributions to Iran: In 2008 millions of dollars in financial guarantees were provided to Iran’s industrial and natural gas sectors through the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The international community should demand that future MIGA outlays not end up in Iranian hands.
7. Stop pipeline deals with Iran: There are a number of major pipeline deals with Iran that will enable Tehran to transfer and sell natural gas to Europe. The Nabucco pipeline and others, worth billions of dollars, would seriously erode the impact of economic sanctions that could halt Iran’s nuclear program.
8. Halt arms sales to Iran: Because Iran’s missile defense system is antiquated, Tehran seeks to purchase advanced weapons systems. Media reports at the end of 2008 indicate that Russia signed an agreement to sell its S-300 air-defense missiles, among the most sophisticated in the world, to Iran. Later reports state that Russia has decided not to sell this system to Iran. One speculated reason is that Iran could not make payments. Iran’s acquiring this system would significantly change the military balance in the Middle East.
9. Deny shipping insurance to companies helping Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1803 calls on all states to "exercise vigilance" with regard to companies that do business with Iran in order to avoid financing Iran's proliferation activities. The resolution specifically cautions states to be wary of granting insurance to businesses trading with Iran. It also focuses on export credits and loan guarantees. Insurance companies could increase the cost of doing business in or with Iran by reassessing their rates in view of Iran’s questionable stability. Transit insurance could also be raised for ships and merchandise passing through Iran.
10. Intelligence: Gathering accurate and actionable intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program is key to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international community, led by the United States, should intensify its efforts at gathering such intelligence, upgrade the tools and facilitate greater cooperation among the world’s intelligence organizations.
11. Divestment: American states and investors are taking the lead in incorporating “terror-free” investing principles to remove a source of income from Tehran’s leaders. Governments and investors around the world should pursue similar principles in their investment strategies.
12. Impose inspections and restrictions on Iranian goods and officials: Stringent inspections of items entering or leaving Iran should be carried out, and strict international travel prohibitions should be imposed on Iranian officials, except for nuclear negotiators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency.
From: The Israel Project, online at www.theisraelproject.org June 3, 2009
Iran is moving steadfastly toward acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons. Last month it successfully test-fired a solid-fuel missile with a range of 1,200 miles – a weapons delivery system able to reach most countries in the Middle East and some in Europe. The world does not have a lot of time to prevent Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, from getting these weapons. It will take the will of key countries to stop Iran. Following are twelve ideas – carrots and sticks – that can be used to persuade Iran’s leaders that it is in their interest to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and support of terror – without military action or regime change. All peaceful means must be used; at the same time, all options should be left on the table. Nothing would be more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons.
1. Cut off the sale of gasoline to Iran: The biggest stick the international community can wield remains Iran’s dependence on imported gasoline. Iran has not developed enough capacity to refine its crude oil into gasoline. It therefore imports 40 percent of the gasoline it needs – almost all of it from Swiss, Dutch, French, British and Indian companies. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rationed gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests broke out, forcing him to end the rationing. These European and Indian governments should stop companies based in their countries from selling gasoline to Iran.
2. Ban investments in Iran’s energy sector: In addition to cutting off gasoline sales, the international community, led by the United Sates, should provide incentives to foreign banks and companies to eliminate investments in Iran’s energy sector. This would prevent foreign oil companies from investing in Iran’s oil industry.
3. Eliminate the purchase of oil from Iran: Iran derives an estimated 85 percent of its revenue from its oil sales. Iran's leaders use oil revenues to subsidize heavily the prices of gasoline, food, housing and other necessities. Clearly, a severe reduction in these revenues would have a strong impact on Iran’s people and leaders.
4. Sustain international pressure on foreign banks and oil companies to halt their dealings with Iran's energy sector: International pressure on foreign banks and oil companies already has led major firms worldwide, such as Germany's Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, England's HSBC, Credit Suisse and Royal Dutch Shell, to halt or limit their business with Iran.
5. Freeze Iranian bank assets and impose sanctions on Iranian entities linked to its nuclear program: In June 2008, all of the EU's 27 member states agreed to freeze any assets held in their jurisdictions by Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned bank which has been labeled a nuclear proliferator by the EU, US and Australia for its role in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program. In March 2009, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 companies linked to Bank Melli. In February 2009, officials from France, Britain and Germany issued a list of 34 Iranian entities allegedly linked to Iran’s nuclear or biological weapons programs. Measures such as these must be broadened.
6. End World Bank contributions to Iran: In 2008 millions of dollars in financial guarantees were provided to Iran’s industrial and natural gas sectors through the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The international community should demand that future MIGA outlays not end up in Iranian hands.
7. Stop pipeline deals with Iran: There are a number of major pipeline deals with Iran that will enable Tehran to transfer and sell natural gas to Europe. The Nabucco pipeline and others, worth billions of dollars, would seriously erode the impact of economic sanctions that could halt Iran’s nuclear program.
8. Halt arms sales to Iran: Because Iran’s missile defense system is antiquated, Tehran seeks to purchase advanced weapons systems. Media reports at the end of 2008 indicate that Russia signed an agreement to sell its S-300 air-defense missiles, among the most sophisticated in the world, to Iran. Later reports state that Russia has decided not to sell this system to Iran. One speculated reason is that Iran could not make payments. Iran’s acquiring this system would significantly change the military balance in the Middle East.
9. Deny shipping insurance to companies helping Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1803 calls on all states to "exercise vigilance" with regard to companies that do business with Iran in order to avoid financing Iran's proliferation activities. The resolution specifically cautions states to be wary of granting insurance to businesses trading with Iran. It also focuses on export credits and loan guarantees. Insurance companies could increase the cost of doing business in or with Iran by reassessing their rates in view of Iran’s questionable stability. Transit insurance could also be raised for ships and merchandise passing through Iran.
10. Intelligence: Gathering accurate and actionable intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program is key to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international community, led by the United States, should intensify its efforts at gathering such intelligence, upgrade the tools and facilitate greater cooperation among the world’s intelligence organizations.
11. Divestment: American states and investors are taking the lead in incorporating “terror-free” investing principles to remove a source of income from Tehran’s leaders. Governments and investors around the world should pursue similar principles in their investment strategies.
12. Impose inspections and restrictions on Iranian goods and officials: Stringent inspections of items entering or leaving Iran should be carried out, and strict international travel prohibitions should be imposed on Iranian officials, except for nuclear negotiators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Iran's Ahmadinejad rejects Western nuclear proposal
Mon May 25, 2009 11:15am EDT
By Parisa Hafezi and Zahra Hosseinian
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected a Western proposal for it to "freeze" its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions and ruled out any talks with major powers on the issue.
The comments by the conservative president, who is seeking a second term in a June 12 election, are likely to further disappoint the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is seeking to engage Iran diplomatically.
The United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain said in April they would invite Iran to a meeting to try and find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row.
The West accuses Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons. Iran, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, denies the charge and says it only wants nuclear power to generate electricity.
Breaking with past U.S. policy of shunning direct talks with Iran, Obama's administration last month said it would join nuclear discussions with Tehran from now on.
Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Obama at the United Nations in New York "regarding the roots of world problems" but he made clear Tehran would not bow to pressure on the nuclear issue.
"Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said.
"The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference. "From now on we will continue our path in the framework of the (U.N. nuclear watchdog) agency."
He was asked about a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" proposal first put forward last year under which Iran would freeze expansion of its nuclear program in return for the U.N. Security Council halting further sanctions against Tehran.
....
Mon May 25, 2009 11:15am EDT
"Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said."The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference.
By Parisa Hafezi and Zahra Hosseinian
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected a Western proposal for it to "freeze" its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions and ruled out any talks with major powers on the issue.
The comments by the conservative president, who is seeking a second term in a June 12 election, are likely to further disappoint the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is seeking to engage Iran diplomatically.
The United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain said in April they would invite Iran to a meeting to try and find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row.
The West accuses Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons. Iran, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, denies the charge and says it only wants nuclear power to generate electricity.
Breaking with past U.S. policy of shunning direct talks with Iran, Obama's administration last month said it would join nuclear discussions with Tehran from now on.
Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Obama at the United Nations in New York "regarding the roots of world problems" but he made clear Tehran would not bow to pressure on the nuclear issue.
"Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said.
"The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference. "From now on we will continue our path in the framework of the (U.N. nuclear watchdog) agency."
He was asked about a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" proposal first put forward last year under which Iran would freeze expansion of its nuclear program in return for the U.N. Security Council halting further sanctions against Tehran.
....
Monday, May 18, 2009
Obama: No deadline on talks to stop Iran nuclear program
May. 18, 2009 Hilary Leila Krieger and Jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The United States will not adhere to "artificial deadlines" when negotiating to end Teheran's nuclear ambitions, but talks must not be an excuse for inaction, and that tougher sanctions may be imposed to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama said following a meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House.
"I believe that it is not only in interest of the international community [that Iran cease its nuclear activities,]" Obama told reporters following the meeting. "I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons. It would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and it would destabilize the region."
"Iran can achieve security, international respect, and prosperity for its people through other means," the president promised. "I'm prepared to make what I think to be a persuasive argument [regarding this matter]."
However, the United States would not continue talks with Iran forever, Obama said, and even as he suggested that America would assess its policy of engagement by the end of the year to see if progress has been made.
In his remarks, Netanyahu praised the president's remarks on Iran, saying that he appreciated the American "commitment on the matter."
"The worst danger we face is that Iran develops nuclear capabilities," the premier said. "Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by our standards. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would put us all in peril."
Both leaders also talked about the importance of continuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Obama stressed the need for a "two-state solution," a phrase that Netanyahu pointedly did not use in his own remarks. For his part, the prime minister said that "the terminology would take care of itself," and talked about two peoples living side-by-side in peace, never mentioning, however, a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu said that "compromise" would be necessary from both sides, and that Israel is willing to take those steps.
Asked about recent comments by Israeli officials who stated that progress with the Palestinians was contingent on progress with curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Obama said he saw the issue of linkage the other way around. He suggested that improvement with the Israel-Palestinian conflict would make it easier to enlist broader support with the international community to keep Iran from acquiring weapons, but nodded his head when Netanyahu added that neither country was linking the policy between the two issues.
Obama called the meeting, which was extended well beyond its originally scheduled time, "extraordinarily productive."
May. 18, 2009 Hilary Leila Krieger and Jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The United States will not adhere to "artificial deadlines" when negotiating to end Teheran's nuclear ambitions, but talks must not be an excuse for inaction, and that tougher sanctions may be imposed to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama said following a meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House.
"I believe that it is not only in interest of the international community [that Iran cease its nuclear activities,]" Obama told reporters following the meeting. "I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons. It would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and it would destabilize the region."
"Iran can achieve security, international respect, and prosperity for its people through other means," the president promised. "I'm prepared to make what I think to be a persuasive argument [regarding this matter]."
However, the United States would not continue talks with Iran forever, Obama said, and even as he suggested that America would assess its policy of engagement by the end of the year to see if progress has been made.
In his remarks, Netanyahu praised the president's remarks on Iran, saying that he appreciated the American "commitment on the matter."
"The worst danger we face is that Iran develops nuclear capabilities," the premier said. "Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by our standards. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would put us all in peril."
Both leaders also talked about the importance of continuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Obama stressed the need for a "two-state solution," a phrase that Netanyahu pointedly did not use in his own remarks. For his part, the prime minister said that "the terminology would take care of itself," and talked about two peoples living side-by-side in peace, never mentioning, however, a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu said that "compromise" would be necessary from both sides, and that Israel is willing to take those steps.
Asked about recent comments by Israeli officials who stated that progress with the Palestinians was contingent on progress with curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Obama said he saw the issue of linkage the other way around. He suggested that improvement with the Israel-Palestinian conflict would make it easier to enlist broader support with the international community to keep Iran from acquiring weapons, but nodded his head when Netanyahu added that neither country was linking the policy between the two issues.
Obama called the meeting, which was extended well beyond its originally scheduled time, "extraordinarily productive."
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Why the Obama administration has it backwards on Iran
DON'T BLAME ISRAEL
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
May 9, 2009 --
"The task of forming an international coalition to thwart Iran's nuclear program will be made easier if progress is made in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said, according to sources in Washington. Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians." - Jerusalem Post, May 4
Rahm Emanuel is a good man and a good friend of Israel, but in a highly publicized recent statement he linked American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli efforts toward establishing a Palestinian state. This is dangerous.
I have long favored the two-state solution, as do most Israelis and American supporters of Israel. I have also long opposed civilian settlements deep into the West Bank. I hope that Israel does make efforts, as it has in the past, to establish a Palestinian state as part of an overall peace between the Jewish state and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
Israel in 2000-2001 offered the Palestinians a state in the entire Gaza Strip and more than 95% of the West Bank, with its capital in Jerusalem and a $35 billion compensation package for the refugees. Yassir Arafat rejected the offer and instead began the second intifada in which nearly 5,000 people were killed. I hope that Israel once again offers the Palestinians a contiguous, economically-viable, politically independent state, in exchange for a real peace, with security, without terrorism and without any claim to "return" 4 million alleged refugees as a way of destroying Israel by demography rather than violence.
But the threat from a nuclear Iran is existential and immediate for Israel. It also poses dangers to the entire region, as well as to the US - not only from the possibility that a nation directed by suicidal leaders would order a nuclear attack on Israel or its allies, but from the likelihood that nuclear material could end up in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas or even Al Qaeda. Recall what Hashemi Rifsanjani said to an American journalist:
[Rifsanjani] "boast[ed] that an Iranian [nuclear] attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small 'sacrifice' from among the billion Muslims in the world."
Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to take this threat seriously and to consider it as a first priority. It will be far easier for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians if it did not have to worry about the threat of a nuclear attack or a dirty bomb. It will also be easier for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank if Iran were not arming and inciting Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of Israel to terrorize Israel with rockets and suicide bombers.
In this respect, Emanuel has it exactly backwards: if there is any linkage, it goes the other way - defanging Iran will promote the end of the occupation and the two-state solution. Threatening not to help Israel in relation to Iran unless it moves toward a two-state solution first is likely to backfire.
After all, Israel is a democracy and in the end the people decide. A recent poll published in Haaretz concluded that 66% of Israelis favored a preemptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, with 75% of those saying they would still favor such a strike even if the US were opposed.
Israel's new government will accept a two-state solution if they are persuaded that it will really be a solution - that it will assure peace and an end to terrorist and nuclear threats to Israeli citizens. I have known Prime Minister Netanyhu for 35 years and I recently had occasion to spend some time with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. I am convinced that despite their occasional tough talk, both want to see an end to this conflict.
Israelis have been scarred by what happened in Gaza. Israel ended the occupation, removed all of the settlers, and left behind millions of dollars worth of agricultural and other facilities designed to make the Gaza into an economically-viable democracy. Land for peace is what they sought. Instead they got land for rocket attacks against their children, their women and their elderly. No one wants to see a repeat of this trade-off.
Emanuel's statements were viewed with alarm in Israel because most Israelis, though they want to like President Obama, are nervous about his policies toward Israel. They are prepared to accept pressure regarding the settlements, but they worry that the Obama Administration may be ready to compromise, or at least threaten to compromise, Israel's security, if its newly elected government does not submit to pressure on the settlements.
Making peace with the Palestinians will be extremely complicated. It will take time. It may or may not succeed in the end, depending on whether the Palestinians will continue to want their own state less than they want to see the end of the Jewish state. Israel should not be held hostage to the Iranian nuclear threat by the difficulty of making peace with the Palestinians. Israel may be rebuffed again, especially if Palestinian radicals believe that such a rebuff will soften American action against Iran. In the meantime, Iran will continue in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
That cannot be allowed to happen, regardless of progress on the ground toward peace with the Palestinians. These two issues must be delinked if either is to succeed. There are other ways of encouraging Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Nuclear blackmail is not one of them.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the author of "The Case Against Israel's Enemies" (Wiley).
DON'T BLAME ISRAEL
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
May 9, 2009 --
"The task of forming an international coalition to thwart Iran's nuclear program will be made easier if progress is made in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said, according to sources in Washington. Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians." - Jerusalem Post, May 4
Rahm Emanuel is a good man and a good friend of Israel, but in a highly publicized recent statement he linked American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli efforts toward establishing a Palestinian state. This is dangerous.
I have long favored the two-state solution, as do most Israelis and American supporters of Israel. I have also long opposed civilian settlements deep into the West Bank. I hope that Israel does make efforts, as it has in the past, to establish a Palestinian state as part of an overall peace between the Jewish state and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
Israel in 2000-2001 offered the Palestinians a state in the entire Gaza Strip and more than 95% of the West Bank, with its capital in Jerusalem and a $35 billion compensation package for the refugees. Yassir Arafat rejected the offer and instead began the second intifada in which nearly 5,000 people were killed. I hope that Israel once again offers the Palestinians a contiguous, economically-viable, politically independent state, in exchange for a real peace, with security, without terrorism and without any claim to "return" 4 million alleged refugees as a way of destroying Israel by demography rather than violence.
But the threat from a nuclear Iran is existential and immediate for Israel. It also poses dangers to the entire region, as well as to the US - not only from the possibility that a nation directed by suicidal leaders would order a nuclear attack on Israel or its allies, but from the likelihood that nuclear material could end up in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas or even Al Qaeda. Recall what Hashemi Rifsanjani said to an American journalist:
[Rifsanjani] "boast[ed] that an Iranian [nuclear] attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small 'sacrifice' from among the billion Muslims in the world."
Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to take this threat seriously and to consider it as a first priority. It will be far easier for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians if it did not have to worry about the threat of a nuclear attack or a dirty bomb. It will also be easier for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank if Iran were not arming and inciting Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of Israel to terrorize Israel with rockets and suicide bombers.
In this respect, Emanuel has it exactly backwards: if there is any linkage, it goes the other way - defanging Iran will promote the end of the occupation and the two-state solution. Threatening not to help Israel in relation to Iran unless it moves toward a two-state solution first is likely to backfire.
After all, Israel is a democracy and in the end the people decide. A recent poll published in Haaretz concluded that 66% of Israelis favored a preemptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, with 75% of those saying they would still favor such a strike even if the US were opposed.
Israel's new government will accept a two-state solution if they are persuaded that it will really be a solution - that it will assure peace and an end to terrorist and nuclear threats to Israeli citizens. I have known Prime Minister Netanyhu for 35 years and I recently had occasion to spend some time with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. I am convinced that despite their occasional tough talk, both want to see an end to this conflict.
Israelis have been scarred by what happened in Gaza. Israel ended the occupation, removed all of the settlers, and left behind millions of dollars worth of agricultural and other facilities designed to make the Gaza into an economically-viable democracy. Land for peace is what they sought. Instead they got land for rocket attacks against their children, their women and their elderly. No one wants to see a repeat of this trade-off.
Emanuel's statements were viewed with alarm in Israel because most Israelis, though they want to like President Obama, are nervous about his policies toward Israel. They are prepared to accept pressure regarding the settlements, but they worry that the Obama Administration may be ready to compromise, or at least threaten to compromise, Israel's security, if its newly elected government does not submit to pressure on the settlements.
Making peace with the Palestinians will be extremely complicated. It will take time. It may or may not succeed in the end, depending on whether the Palestinians will continue to want their own state less than they want to see the end of the Jewish state. Israel should not be held hostage to the Iranian nuclear threat by the difficulty of making peace with the Palestinians. Israel may be rebuffed again, especially if Palestinian radicals believe that such a rebuff will soften American action against Iran. In the meantime, Iran will continue in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
That cannot be allowed to happen, regardless of progress on the ground toward peace with the Palestinians. These two issues must be delinked if either is to succeed. There are other ways of encouraging Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Nuclear blackmail is not one of them.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the author of "The Case Against Israel's Enemies" (Wiley).
Sunday, May 10, 2009
US 'deadline' for concluding talks with Iran?
Negotiating Negotiations
Shmuel Rosner - 05.10.2009
I don’t know whether this report is accurate but I doubt it is. It reads that “The United States has set October as its target for completing the first round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program, according to confidential reports sent to Jerusalem” — but is based on “classified notice reporting on a meeting between a senior European official and the special U.S. envoy on Iran, Dennis Ross.” That’s second or third hand reporting. Contradicting it, just a week ago, an American official spoke on the record with reporters:
Contrary to what critics on the left tend to argue, Israel isn’t the only one thinking that a deadline is necessary. Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, and today a Harvard Professor, had more Iran-related negotiating hours in recent years than anyone, and he seems to think that prolonging the talks will not produce for better results:
Assuming that the U.S.-Iran dialogue will start in earnest only after Iran’s June election, October seems like a sensible date to Israel:
Whether or not there’s some truth to the fresher report from Jerusalem, “deadline” talk will be at the center of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s talk with President Obama next week. According to many reports, Obama realizes that the Iranians might be playing for time, and the Senate report, confirming Israel’s claims that “Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb in six months,” gives Netanyahu some additional ammunition for this meeting. The danger one might detect in the different, sometimes conflicting reports on “deadline yes or no” — is that time can’t only lapse in negotiations with Iran — it can also pass in negotiation over the right deadline for negotiation.
Shmuel Rosner - 05.10.2009
I don’t know whether this report is accurate but I doubt it is. It reads that “The United States has set October as its target for completing the first round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program, according to confidential reports sent to Jerusalem” — but is based on “classified notice reporting on a meeting between a senior European official and the special U.S. envoy on Iran, Dennis Ross.” That’s second or third hand reporting. Contradicting it, just a week ago, an American official spoke on the record with reporters:
White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told foreign journalists Wednesday that “it’s not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables, but rather seeing how the engagement can move forward.”
Contrary to what critics on the left tend to argue, Israel isn’t the only one thinking that a deadline is necessary. Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, and today a Harvard Professor, had more Iran-related negotiating hours in recent years than anyone, and he seems to think that prolonging the talks will not produce for better results:
“We’ve got to negotiate from a position of strength. We can’t go hat in hand to these negotiations and think by just talking we are going to make progress,” Burns said. Any negotiations with Tehran must have a strict timetable and include a previous agreement with both Russia and China for harsh sanctions if the talks fail, Burns said. And they should be backed up by the possibility of military action, he added.
Assuming that the U.S.-Iran dialogue will start in earnest only after Iran’s June election, October seems like a sensible date to Israel:
“It is important that the dialogue with Iran be limited, and if after three months it will become clear that the Iranians stalling and are not shelving their nuclear program, the international community will be required to take practical measures against them,” Lieberman said in a meeting with Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Tuesday.
Whether or not there’s some truth to the fresher report from Jerusalem, “deadline” talk will be at the center of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s talk with President Obama next week. According to many reports, Obama realizes that the Iranians might be playing for time, and the Senate report, confirming Israel’s claims that “Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb in six months,” gives Netanyahu some additional ammunition for this meeting. The danger one might detect in the different, sometimes conflicting reports on “deadline yes or no” — is that time can’t only lapse in negotiations with Iran — it can also pass in negotiation over the right deadline for negotiation.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wapo: Iran is playing with the US
An editorial from the Washington Post, challenging the president's strategy with Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invitation to Appease Will the Obama administration talk to Iran while it persecutes Americans and libels Israel?
Editorial, Washington Post Wednesday, April 22, 2009
LAST WEEK, the Iranian regime brought American journalist Roxana Saberi before a closed court and in a one-hour trial convicted her of espionage -- a blatantly bogus charge. She was sentenced to eight years in prison. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was last seen inaugurating a new facility for Iran's nuclear program, appeared at the U.N. conference on racism in Geneva to deliver a speech seemingly calculated to cause maximum outrage in the United States and other Western countries. They had, he said, "resorted to military aggression" in order to create Israel "on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust."
Thus has Iran answered President Obama's offer of dialogue and the decision by his administration to join talks on Tehran's nuclear program. To the consternation of some European officials, Washington has insisted on dropping a long-standing demand that Iran obey U.N. resolutions ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment before negotiations begin. Iran could have responded to this concession by releasing Ms. Saberi, who holds U.S. and Iranian citizenship, and ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson, as the administration asked it to do in a State Department letter last month. Instead the charges against Ms. Saberi were ramped up, from practicing journalism without a credential and buying wine, to espionage; the regime does not even admit that it is holding Mr. Levinson.
Then came Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech, which repeated the numerous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic libels that have made the Iranian president a pariah in the West. Western delegates walked out on the address, which the State Department rightly called "vile and hateful." Yet Mr. Ahmadinejad had accomplished his aim: advancing Iran's claim to represent radical Arab and Islamic opinion, along with his own campaign for reelection in June.
Iran watchers point out that Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent other messages recently. He said he would welcome direct talks with Washington, and over the weekend he dispatched a letter to Ms. Saberi's prosecutor urging that she be allowed to defend herself. These are not necessarily contradictions. What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. Mr. Ahmadinejad's unlikely concern for Ms. Saberi's defense, along with other regime statements suggesting her sentence could be reduced, sound like an offer to make her a bargaining chip -- to be exchanged, perhaps, for members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are in U.S. custody in Iraq.
Mr. Obama has always said that talks with Iran must be conducted under the right circumstances and in a way that advances U.S. interests. The administration won't meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's radical agenda. It should postpone any contact until after the Iranian election in June -- and it should look for clear signs that Iran is acting in good faith before talks begin. The unconditional release of Ms. Saberi and Mr. Levinson would be one.
What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. --editorial
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invitation to Appease Will the Obama administration talk to Iran while it persecutes Americans and libels Israel?
Editorial, Washington Post Wednesday, April 22, 2009
LAST WEEK, the Iranian regime brought American journalist Roxana Saberi before a closed court and in a one-hour trial convicted her of espionage -- a blatantly bogus charge. She was sentenced to eight years in prison. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was last seen inaugurating a new facility for Iran's nuclear program, appeared at the U.N. conference on racism in Geneva to deliver a speech seemingly calculated to cause maximum outrage in the United States and other Western countries. They had, he said, "resorted to military aggression" in order to create Israel "on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust."
Thus has Iran answered President Obama's offer of dialogue and the decision by his administration to join talks on Tehran's nuclear program. To the consternation of some European officials, Washington has insisted on dropping a long-standing demand that Iran obey U.N. resolutions ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment before negotiations begin. Iran could have responded to this concession by releasing Ms. Saberi, who holds U.S. and Iranian citizenship, and ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson, as the administration asked it to do in a State Department letter last month. Instead the charges against Ms. Saberi were ramped up, from practicing journalism without a credential and buying wine, to espionage; the regime does not even admit that it is holding Mr. Levinson.
Then came Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech, which repeated the numerous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic libels that have made the Iranian president a pariah in the West. Western delegates walked out on the address, which the State Department rightly called "vile and hateful." Yet Mr. Ahmadinejad had accomplished his aim: advancing Iran's claim to represent radical Arab and Islamic opinion, along with his own campaign for reelection in June.
Iran watchers point out that Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent other messages recently. He said he would welcome direct talks with Washington, and over the weekend he dispatched a letter to Ms. Saberi's prosecutor urging that she be allowed to defend herself. These are not necessarily contradictions. What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. Mr. Ahmadinejad's unlikely concern for Ms. Saberi's defense, along with other regime statements suggesting her sentence could be reduced, sound like an offer to make her a bargaining chip -- to be exchanged, perhaps, for members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are in U.S. custody in Iraq.
Mr. Obama has always said that talks with Iran must be conducted under the right circumstances and in a way that advances U.S. interests. The administration won't meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's radical agenda. It should postpone any contact until after the Iranian election in June -- and it should look for clear signs that Iran is acting in good faith before talks begin. The unconditional release of Ms. Saberi and Mr. Levinson would be one.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Breaking News: Ahmadinejad says no more talks about Nuclear Issue
April 16, 2009 by Barry Rubin
Meir Javedanfar, a reliable analyst who follows Iran closely and is fluent in Farsi, says that Iran's president is now saying Iran's nuclear program is non-negotiable. The tone of the statement is similar to his Der Spiegel interview which I reported here earlier.
The implication is that President Obama's approach and the weakness of other Western governments has emboldened Ahmadinejad, who is also showing off for his election supporters. Now he says he's going on the offensive, saying in effect: let's not talk about Iran's nuclear program, let's talk about how we are going to change the structure of international affairs to eliminate Western hegemony and redistribute power.
Meir writes:
"On the 15th of April, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a speech in the city Kerman stated that “the time for discussions over the nuclear program has come to an end, and the clock will not go back”.
He continued to say “today, we have to discuss and collectively think about other issues such as reform of international structures, reform of the UN Security Council, and execution of justice and real peace. Iran is ready in all such areas”.
Meir adds: "It is very unlikely that Ahmadinejad would make such a statement without the consent of the Supreme Leader. Therefore, judging by his statement, the nuclear program is unlikely to be part of the negotiations with Obama."
source: http://middleeastanalyst.com/2009/04/17/ahmadinejad-iran-wont-negotiate
April 16, 2009 by Barry Rubin
Meir Javedanfar, a reliable analyst who follows Iran closely and is fluent in Farsi, says that Iran's president is now saying Iran's nuclear program is non-negotiable. The tone of the statement is similar to his Der Spiegel interview which I reported here earlier.
The implication is that President Obama's approach and the weakness of other Western governments has emboldened Ahmadinejad, who is also showing off for his election supporters. Now he says he's going on the offensive, saying in effect: let's not talk about Iran's nuclear program, let's talk about how we are going to change the structure of international affairs to eliminate Western hegemony and redistribute power.
Meir writes:
"On the 15th of April, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a speech in the city Kerman stated that “the time for discussions over the nuclear program has come to an end, and the clock will not go back”.
He continued to say “today, we have to discuss and collectively think about other issues such as reform of international structures, reform of the UN Security Council, and execution of justice and real peace. Iran is ready in all such areas”.
Meir adds: "It is very unlikely that Ahmadinejad would make such a statement without the consent of the Supreme Leader. Therefore, judging by his statement, the nuclear program is unlikely to be part of the negotiations with Obama."
source: http://middleeastanalyst.com/2009/04/17/ahmadinejad-iran-wont-negotiate
Friday, April 10, 2009
Rubin: read article on why Israel might have to attack Iran someday
An extremely interesting article about why Israel might--and might have to--attack Iran some day
-commentary by Barry Rubin
link to article recommended by Barry Rubin: http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/
Read it as so far superior to what is usually written on such matters. The critique below is about secondary points which do not detract from the article's value but express some of my personal reactions.
Samuels is sympathetic to Israel and there are good--even very clever--aspects to the argument. But he has to earn his right to make an essentially pro-Israel argument by:
1. bashing Israel a bit, sometimes in rather silly ways.
2. says all sorts of inaccurate things about Israel.
3. understandably put everything in terms of US interests. This is reasonable for a U.S. audience of course but still it is an article about why Israel might have to take great risks.
4. miss the reality of the Arab world making it seem like a sort of black box rather than a place with serious malfunctions that messes things up on its own.
And finally, and most importantly, he omits the rather main reason why Israel has launched attackes on Hamas and Hizballah--self-defense, not restoring credibility as the main goal--and on Iran--belief that Iran might use nuclear weapons against it.
Again, though, an important article well-worth reading, making insightful points. Samuels has been writing good things and shown some real courage in doing so.
-commentary by Barry Rubin
link to article recommended by Barry Rubin: http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/
Read it as so far superior to what is usually written on such matters. The critique below is about secondary points which do not detract from the article's value but express some of my personal reactions.
Samuels is sympathetic to Israel and there are good--even very clever--aspects to the argument. But he has to earn his right to make an essentially pro-Israel argument by:
1. bashing Israel a bit, sometimes in rather silly ways.
2. says all sorts of inaccurate things about Israel.
3. understandably put everything in terms of US interests. This is reasonable for a U.S. audience of course but still it is an article about why Israel might have to take great risks.
4. miss the reality of the Arab world making it seem like a sort of black box rather than a place with serious malfunctions that messes things up on its own.
And finally, and most importantly, he omits the rather main reason why Israel has launched attackes on Hamas and Hizballah--self-defense, not restoring credibility as the main goal--and on Iran--belief that Iran might use nuclear weapons against it.
Again, though, an important article well-worth reading, making insightful points. Samuels has been writing good things and shown some real courage in doing so.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Obama: We must talk to Iran, but threats against Israel unacceptable
By Reuters 12/8/2008
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Sunday that the West must engage in "tough but direct diplomacy" with Iran, but empahzied that Tehran's vocalized threats against Israel stand "contrary to everything" the United States believes in.
He also said that he was prepared to offer Iran economic incentives to stop its nuclear program, but warned that sanctions could be toughened if it refused.
"We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, that their funding of terrorist organizations, their threats against Israel are contrary to everything we believe in," Obama said.
Advertisement
"We are willing to talk to them directly and give them a clear choice and ultimately let them make a determination in terms of whether they want to do this the hard way or the easy way," Obama told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
Dealing with Iran's uranium enrichment program, which some Western countries say is being used to develop a nuclear bomb, will be one of the first foreign policy tests for Obama after he takes office on January 20.
Iran last month signaled it was expanding its nuclear enrichment program, a clear sign that it has no intention of bowing to Western pressure. Tehran says the program is purely for peaceful purposes to generate more electricity.
Iran said last week it did not believe U.S. policy would change under Obama. Washington, which cut ties with Tehran after the 1979 revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed shah, has been pushing hard to isolate Iran over its nuclear program.
He said his administration would work with international partners to present a set of carrots and sticks to encourage Iran to halt its nuclear development program.
"In terms of carrots, we can provide economic incentives that would be helpful to a country that despite being a net oil producer is under enormous strain, huge inflation, lot of employment problems," Obama said, without specifying what form the incentives would take.
"But we also have to focus on the sticks. In order for us to change Iran's behavior we may have to tighten up those sanctions."
Iran's refusal to stop enriching uranium, which can provide fuel for nuclear power plants or material for bombs if refined to a higher degree, has drawn three rounds of UN sanctions since 2006 as well as separate U.S. measures.
During a presidential debate with Republican rival John McCain in October, Obama said his administration would work to restrict gasoline imports to Iran, which suffers a shortage of refined fuel.
By Reuters 12/8/2008
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Sunday that the West must engage in "tough but direct diplomacy" with Iran, but empahzied that Tehran's vocalized threats against Israel stand "contrary to everything" the United States believes in.
He also said that he was prepared to offer Iran economic incentives to stop its nuclear program, but warned that sanctions could be toughened if it refused.
"We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, that their funding of terrorist organizations, their threats against Israel are contrary to everything we believe in," Obama said.
Advertisement
"We are willing to talk to them directly and give them a clear choice and ultimately let them make a determination in terms of whether they want to do this the hard way or the easy way," Obama told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
Dealing with Iran's uranium enrichment program, which some Western countries say is being used to develop a nuclear bomb, will be one of the first foreign policy tests for Obama after he takes office on January 20.
Iran last month signaled it was expanding its nuclear enrichment program, a clear sign that it has no intention of bowing to Western pressure. Tehran says the program is purely for peaceful purposes to generate more electricity.
Iran said last week it did not believe U.S. policy would change under Obama. Washington, which cut ties with Tehran after the 1979 revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed shah, has been pushing hard to isolate Iran over its nuclear program.
He said his administration would work with international partners to present a set of carrots and sticks to encourage Iran to halt its nuclear development program.
"In terms of carrots, we can provide economic incentives that would be helpful to a country that despite being a net oil producer is under enormous strain, huge inflation, lot of employment problems," Obama said, without specifying what form the incentives would take.
"But we also have to focus on the sticks. In order for us to change Iran's behavior we may have to tighten up those sanctions."
Iran's refusal to stop enriching uranium, which can provide fuel for nuclear power plants or material for bombs if refined to a higher degree, has drawn three rounds of UN sanctions since 2006 as well as separate U.S. measures.
During a presidential debate with Republican rival John McCain in October, Obama said his administration would work to restrict gasoline imports to Iran, which suffers a shortage of refined fuel.
Friday, November 21, 2008
November 20, 2008
Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER New York Times
Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.
The figures detailing Iran’s progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country’s main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.
Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.
“They clearly have enough material for a bomb,” said Richard L. Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. “They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that’s another matter.”
Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons.
While some Iranian officials have threatened to bar inspectors in the past, the country has made no such moves, and many experts inside the Bush administration and the I.A.E.A. believe it will avoid the risk of attempting “nuclear breakout” until it possessed a larger uranium supply.
Even so, for President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down.
American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon. But enriching uranium, and obtaining enough material to build a weapon, is considered the most difficult part of the process.
Siegfried S. Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said the growing size of the Iranian stockpile “underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option.”
In the report to its board, the atomic agency said Iran’s main enrichment plant was now feeding uranium into about 3,800 centrifuges — machines that spin incredibly fast to enrich the element into nuclear fuel. That count is the same as in the agency’s last quarterly report, in September. Iran began installing the centrifuges in early 2007. But the new report’s total of 630 kilograms — an increase of about 150 — shows that Iran has been making progress in accumulating material to make nuclear fuel.
That uranium has been enriched to the low levels needed to fuel a nuclear reactor. To further purify it to the highly enriched state needed to fuel a nuclear warhead, Iran would have to reconfigure its centrifuges and do a couple months of additional processing, nuclear experts said.
“They have a weapon’s worth,” Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, said in an interview.
He said the amount was suitable for a relatively advanced implosion-type weapon like the one dropped on Nagasaki. Its core, he added, would be about the size of a grapefruit. He said a cruder design would require about twice as much weapon-grade fuel.
“It’s a virtual milestone,” Dr. Cochran said of Iran’s stockpile. It is not an imminent threat, he added, because the further technical work to make fuel for a bomb would tip off inspectors, the United States and other powers about “where they’re going.”
The agency’s report made no mention of the possible military implications of the size of Iran’s stockpile. And some experts said the milestone was still months away. In an analysis of the I.A.E.A. report, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, estimated that Iran had not yet reached the mark but would “within a few months.” It added that other analysts estimated it might take as much as a year.
Whatever the exact date, it added, “Iran is progressing” toward the ability to quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for a warhead.
Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that the Iranian stockpile fell slightly short of what international officials conservatively estimate as the minimum threatening amount of nuclear fuel. “They’re very close,” he said of the Iranians in an interview. “If it isn’t tomorrow, it’s soon,” probably a matter of months.
In its report, the I.A.E.A., which is based in Vienna, said Iran was working hard to roughly double its number of operating centrifuges.
A senior European diplomat close to the agency said Iran might have 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of the year. The report also said Iran had said it intended to start installing another group of 3,000 centrifuges early next year.
The atomic energy agency said Iran was continuing to evade questions about its suspected work on nuclear warheads. In a separate report released Wednesday, the agency said, as expected, that it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at a suspected Syrian reactor site bombed by Israel last year.
“While it cannot be excluded that the building in question was intended for non-nuclear use,” the report said, the building’s features “along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site.” Syria has said the uranium came from Israeli bombs.
Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER New York Times
Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.
The figures detailing Iran’s progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country’s main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.
Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.
“They clearly have enough material for a bomb,” said Richard L. Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. “They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that’s another matter.”
Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons.
While some Iranian officials have threatened to bar inspectors in the past, the country has made no such moves, and many experts inside the Bush administration and the I.A.E.A. believe it will avoid the risk of attempting “nuclear breakout” until it possessed a larger uranium supply.
Even so, for President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down.
American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon. But enriching uranium, and obtaining enough material to build a weapon, is considered the most difficult part of the process.
Siegfried S. Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said the growing size of the Iranian stockpile “underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option.”
In the report to its board, the atomic agency said Iran’s main enrichment plant was now feeding uranium into about 3,800 centrifuges — machines that spin incredibly fast to enrich the element into nuclear fuel. That count is the same as in the agency’s last quarterly report, in September. Iran began installing the centrifuges in early 2007. But the new report’s total of 630 kilograms — an increase of about 150 — shows that Iran has been making progress in accumulating material to make nuclear fuel.
That uranium has been enriched to the low levels needed to fuel a nuclear reactor. To further purify it to the highly enriched state needed to fuel a nuclear warhead, Iran would have to reconfigure its centrifuges and do a couple months of additional processing, nuclear experts said.
“They have a weapon’s worth,” Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, said in an interview.
He said the amount was suitable for a relatively advanced implosion-type weapon like the one dropped on Nagasaki. Its core, he added, would be about the size of a grapefruit. He said a cruder design would require about twice as much weapon-grade fuel.
“It’s a virtual milestone,” Dr. Cochran said of Iran’s stockpile. It is not an imminent threat, he added, because the further technical work to make fuel for a bomb would tip off inspectors, the United States and other powers about “where they’re going.”
The agency’s report made no mention of the possible military implications of the size of Iran’s stockpile. And some experts said the milestone was still months away. In an analysis of the I.A.E.A. report, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, estimated that Iran had not yet reached the mark but would “within a few months.” It added that other analysts estimated it might take as much as a year.
Whatever the exact date, it added, “Iran is progressing” toward the ability to quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for a warhead.
Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that the Iranian stockpile fell slightly short of what international officials conservatively estimate as the minimum threatening amount of nuclear fuel. “They’re very close,” he said of the Iranians in an interview. “If it isn’t tomorrow, it’s soon,” probably a matter of months.
In its report, the I.A.E.A., which is based in Vienna, said Iran was working hard to roughly double its number of operating centrifuges.
A senior European diplomat close to the agency said Iran might have 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of the year. The report also said Iran had said it intended to start installing another group of 3,000 centrifuges early next year.
The atomic energy agency said Iran was continuing to evade questions about its suspected work on nuclear warheads. In a separate report released Wednesday, the agency said, as expected, that it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at a suspected Syrian reactor site bombed by Israel last year.
“While it cannot be excluded that the building in question was intended for non-nuclear use,” the report said, the building’s features “along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site.” Syria has said the uranium came from Israeli bombs.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
EU Says Iran Close to Developing Nuclear Weapon
By Lisa Bryant for Voice of America
Paris 24 September 2008
The European Union said Wednesday that Iran was close to being able to develop a nuclear weapon. The warning to the IAEA in Vienna coincides with North Korea's apparent decision to reactivate its main nuclear reactor. Lisa Bryant reports for VOA from Paris.
The text of the European Union's warning on Iran was released to reporters ahead of its delivery to a board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. It claims Tehran is close to being able to arm a nuclear warhead and that it seems to have pursued a program aimed to acquire a nuclear bomb.
By Lisa Bryant for Voice of America
Paris 24 September 2008
The European Union said Wednesday that Iran was close to being able to develop a nuclear weapon. The warning to the IAEA in Vienna coincides with North Korea's apparent decision to reactivate its main nuclear reactor. Lisa Bryant reports for VOA from Paris.
The text of the European Union's warning on Iran was released to reporters ahead of its delivery to a board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. It claims Tehran is close to being able to arm a nuclear warhead and that it seems to have pursued a program aimed to acquire a nuclear bomb.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
THOUSANDS JOIN NYC RALLY TO STOP IRAN NOW
Thousands of people gathered across from the United Nations Monday to protest the presence there this week of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and to call attention to the grave threats Iran poses to the world.
Watch video clips of the rally here.
[United Jewish Communities, 9.23.08] The National Rally to Stop Iran Now featured prominent civic and religious figures, from the United States and overseas, who called on the international community to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, its threats against the United States and Israel, its support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and its domestic human rights abuse. The rally took place against the backdrop of the opening of the UN General Assembly and the gathering of world leaders, including Ahmadinejad.
Natan Sharansky, the former Israeli deputy prime minister and face of the Soviet Jewry movement, likened Iran to the "evil empire" of the former Soviet Union, and recalled how decades ago Soviet Jewry demonstrations took place in the same spot.
"Twenty years ago, in this very place, your parents and grandparents demonstrated, again and again and again. Today the Soviet Union doesn't exist and Soviet Jews are free. The campaign against Iran can be as successful. This is a fight we must win. This is a fight we will win."
Sharansky also spoke of the "moral clarity" of the struggle against a nuclear Iran, and how the Jewish people believe in “tikkun olam,” repairing the world, while Iran supports terrorist groups who use destruction and violence.
“It is important the world knows the difference between those of us who support human life, and those who use human life to blackmail the world,” he said.
The thousands of people of all ages attending the rally represented communities across the United States and Canada. They packed into Dag Hammarskjold Plaza near the United Nations complex and filled a number of city blocks, hoisting placards and banners underscoring Iran’s threat to Israel, the United States and world stability.
“The leader of Iran calls for the destruction of Israel, denies the fact of the Holocaust, and ignores international demands to halt a nuclear program that threatens the Jewish homeland, the region, and the world,” said Howard M. Rieger, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Jewish Communities.
“The thousands of Americans and others joining the Jewish community today send a loud message to the United Nations and beyond that such views and policies are unacceptable and should not be tolerated by civilized and peace-loving nations and peoples.”
The rally was sponsored by the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, which includes leaders and organizations representing various communities who are deeply concerned about the Iranian threat. Members include United Jewish Communities, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, UJA-Federation of New York, and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Speakers represented a cross-section of major denominational, ethnic and civic groups, including Irwin Cotler, former Canadian Minister of Justice; Dr. Paul deVries, New York Divinity School president; the Honorable Rev. Floyd Flake, former member of Congress; Dalia Itzik, speaker of the Israeli Knesset; and Elie Wiesel, Nobel Laureate. Prominent Iranian human rights advocates Nazanin Afshin-Jan and Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi also spoke.
Some called on the UN to bring Ahmadinejad to justice for his threats to destroy fellow member UN nations such as Israel and the United States, rather than providing him a forum to speak.
Ahmadinejad’s “proper place” resides not at the UN, Wiesel said, but before “an international tribunal” such as the World Court in the Hague. "His place is not here in New York, but in Europe, in Holland, in a UN prison cell.”
Speakers also urged the UN Security Council and the world community to take vigorous steps to impose harsh economic sanctions on Iran to force a halt to its nuclear development.
“Iran’s nuclear program is not just a threat to Israel, as bad as that is; it’s not just a threat to America, as bad as that is; it is a threat to all humankind,” Rev. Flake said. “We must stop Iran now.”
“Iran’s nuclear program is not just a threat to Israel, as bad as that is; it’s not just a threat to America, as bad as that is; it is a threat to all humankind,” Rev. Floyd Flake said. “We must stop Iran now.”
Thousands of people gathered across from the United Nations Monday to protest the presence there this week of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and to call attention to the grave threats Iran poses to the world.
Watch video clips of the rally here.
[United Jewish Communities, 9.23.08] The National Rally to Stop Iran Now featured prominent civic and religious figures, from the United States and overseas, who called on the international community to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, its threats against the United States and Israel, its support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and its domestic human rights abuse. The rally took place against the backdrop of the opening of the UN General Assembly and the gathering of world leaders, including Ahmadinejad.
Natan Sharansky, the former Israeli deputy prime minister and face of the Soviet Jewry movement, likened Iran to the "evil empire" of the former Soviet Union, and recalled how decades ago Soviet Jewry demonstrations took place in the same spot.
"Twenty years ago, in this very place, your parents and grandparents demonstrated, again and again and again. Today the Soviet Union doesn't exist and Soviet Jews are free. The campaign against Iran can be as successful. This is a fight we must win. This is a fight we will win."
Sharansky also spoke of the "moral clarity" of the struggle against a nuclear Iran, and how the Jewish people believe in “tikkun olam,” repairing the world, while Iran supports terrorist groups who use destruction and violence.
“It is important the world knows the difference between those of us who support human life, and those who use human life to blackmail the world,” he said.
The thousands of people of all ages attending the rally represented communities across the United States and Canada. They packed into Dag Hammarskjold Plaza near the United Nations complex and filled a number of city blocks, hoisting placards and banners underscoring Iran’s threat to Israel, the United States and world stability.
“The leader of Iran calls for the destruction of Israel, denies the fact of the Holocaust, and ignores international demands to halt a nuclear program that threatens the Jewish homeland, the region, and the world,” said Howard M. Rieger, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Jewish Communities.
“The thousands of Americans and others joining the Jewish community today send a loud message to the United Nations and beyond that such views and policies are unacceptable and should not be tolerated by civilized and peace-loving nations and peoples.”
The rally was sponsored by the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, which includes leaders and organizations representing various communities who are deeply concerned about the Iranian threat. Members include United Jewish Communities, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, UJA-Federation of New York, and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Speakers represented a cross-section of major denominational, ethnic and civic groups, including Irwin Cotler, former Canadian Minister of Justice; Dr. Paul deVries, New York Divinity School president; the Honorable Rev. Floyd Flake, former member of Congress; Dalia Itzik, speaker of the Israeli Knesset; and Elie Wiesel, Nobel Laureate. Prominent Iranian human rights advocates Nazanin Afshin-Jan and Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi also spoke.
Some called on the UN to bring Ahmadinejad to justice for his threats to destroy fellow member UN nations such as Israel and the United States, rather than providing him a forum to speak.
Ahmadinejad’s “proper place” resides not at the UN, Wiesel said, but before “an international tribunal” such as the World Court in the Hague. "His place is not here in New York, but in Europe, in Holland, in a UN prison cell.”
Speakers also urged the UN Security Council and the world community to take vigorous steps to impose harsh economic sanctions on Iran to force a halt to its nuclear development.
“Iran’s nuclear program is not just a threat to Israel, as bad as that is; it’s not just a threat to America, as bad as that is; it is a threat to all humankind,” Rev. Flake said. “We must stop Iran now.”
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Of pertinence.
"If all of these activities are real, it would mean that Iran is moving faster and is closer to obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability than the hard facts suggest. .... [I]f Tehran were to believe that American -- not Israeli -- military action is imminent, it might slow work on the elements of its program that it thinks the world can observe." -- David Kay, Washington Post, September 14, 2008 Op Ed
OPED / David Kay
What's missing from Iran debateBuilding a security framework for a nuclear TehranBy David Kay • Special to The Washington Post • September 14, 2008
It would be impossible and foolish to predict what lies immediately ahead for Iran. Inflation runs rampant and domestic unrest is growing, but the leadership is banding together in support of the country's nuclear program. Threat assessment and war planning are (or should be) about best-guessing capabilities and intentions. When it comes to Iran, these calculations are difficult, but there are things we can -- and must -- figure out. Given what we know and what we can best-guess, it looks as if Iran is 80 percent of the way to a functioning nuclear weapon.
Every nuclear program needs raw materials, a way to refine them and, in the final stage, weaponization. Getting and enriching the materials is the hardest part; without this, a nuclear reaction is impossible. How does Iran's nuclear program measure up?
The situation is a bit murky, but we know, basically, that Tehran has a handle on the fissionable material. Iran imported significant amounts of raw uranium from China in 1991. It has also attempted to produce weapons-grade material, conducting secret enrichment efforts and acquiring designs, materials and samples of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment from the A.Q. Khan network. Plus, over the past 18 years, the Iranians have developed and tested state-of-the-art centrifuges and enrichment techniques. If Iran's 6,000 forthcoming new-design centrifuges were working for a year, the program could produce about five weapons. My best guess is that they are about two to four years away from accomplishing this.
Next comes weaponization. The fissionable material must be converted into metal and packaged. Here again, Iran has made substantial progress. What remains is to produce these elements in adequate numbers and amounts; combine them in an engineering design that ensures that they work and that fits on a missile; and gain confidence that the resulting weapons will get the job done.
All of this is public knowledge, but the answers to most of the important questions relating to intent and progress on crucial elements of weaponization are unknown. It's the only partially understood and suspected activities of Iran that are most alarming. Signs of these activities include detection by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors of samples of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium; more extensive plutonium separation than Iran has admitted; weapons design work; construction of a heavy-water reactor and its associated heavy-water production facility; design work on missile re-entry vehicles that seem to be for a nuclear weapon; and reports of yet-undiscovered programs and facilities.
If all of these activities are real, it would mean that Iran is moving faster and is closer to obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability than the hard facts suggest. Obtaining that last 20 percent of the elements needed to make a nuclear weapon would take perhaps one to two years, instead of the four to seven years needed if they were not.
While we know a lot more about Iran than we did about Iraq (before the Persian Gulf and Iraq wars), we still lack answers to the most important questions, including:
If Iran has decided or decides to acquire nuclear weapons, how long will it take to do so and how many could it produce per year?
How much foreign assistance has Iran received, and from whom did it receive it?
Does Iran have unknown clandestine nuclear facilities and, if so, how many? Doing what?
What are the real capabilities of Iran's various weapons-delivery options, particularly its missiles?
What are the command-and-control arrangements for Iran's nuclear program? Where is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in this mix?
This dirty-laundry list is one reason efforts to provide net assessments about where the program is have proved so contentious. The last U.S. attempt to produce a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, in December, led to a comedy remarkable even by Washington standards. Yet we are talking about a country with known nuclear ambitions and a track record of violating international obligations in pursuit of that goal.
Despite the unanswered questions, we have some pretty frightening knowledge about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Less clear are its intentions.
Tehran often claims to want only to pursue a civilian nuclear program. But it also says it wants to wipe Israel off the map. And Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with Ahmadinejad, sees nuclear "power" as a symbol of national pride. It's difficult to know what to believe.
What truly raises tensions, though, is Iran's worldview. Iranians have learned to fear the power of others and to believe that they must ultimately organize their world in a way that lessens the power of the states that pose the greatest threat to them. And Iran's essential national security threat has never been Israel. It is the United States.
My humble best guess is that Iran is pushing toward a nuclear-weapons capability as rapidly as it can. But if Tehran were to believe that American -- not Israeli -- military action is imminent, it might slow work on the elements of its program that it thinks the world can observe. Yet such temporizing would only be tactical. Its strategic goal is to acquire nuclear weapons to counter what it views as a real U.S. threat. Iran appears to believe that the United States is not willing to accept the validity and survival of the Iranian revolutionary state.
Of course, Iran does not exist in a vacuum. How Israel and the United States perceive the threat, based on their own historical memories and strategic priorities, figures significantly in just how messy this may get.
The context within which these national strategies and decisions are interacting is being reshaped by two factors. First, oil prices have exploded, greatly enriching Iran and making clear to the West the economic and political pain and destruction that could come from a serious disruption in the flow of oil. Second is Iran's belief that it has gained a strategic advantage against the United States as a result of its being tied down in Iraq, and against Israel, because of the tactical blunting, if not defeat, of its military in Lebanon.
Strategic objectives
The United States must figure out and articulate its strategic objectives regarding Iran's nuclear program. At present, its actions and rhetoric are often as conflicted as those of the Islamic Republic.
And while not all would agree with Sen. John McCain's assessment that the only thing worse than a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran would be Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, few in the mainstream of American politics seem ready to go on the record with a plan for "the day after" that does not involve military action.
Two concerns seem to be most absent from discussion of Iran's "nuclear future," whatever it is: First, what policies would limit any advantage, political or military, that Iran might gain from such weapons? Second, how do we begin to craft, with all the states of the region -- including Israel and Iran -- political, economic and security arrangements that recognize their varied interests and concerns and their often very different perspectives on what these are? In the end, we need to decide how we can perform damage control and create arrangements that take into account states' varied interests.
Figuring this out is not rocket science. But we must begin the process of discussion, consultation, planning and acting that will lay the groundwork for a future far different from either the conflicts of the past or the current path toward a regional conflagration that may well involve nuclear weapons.
The United States, along with all of the states in the Middle East, has to create security policies that guarantee that acts of aggression will not be allowed to threaten any state's survival while also beginning to build the economic institutions and policies that can create a future where war seems impossible. While Iran's economy suffers, engagement is more feasible.
What is hard is the actual act of stepping off the (probably sinking) ship we stand on to construct a very different vessel. This is one of those times in history when will is more important than brilliance and when determination to shape a different future is more vital than experience in rituals of the past.
The writer led the U.N. inspections after the Persian Gulf War that uncovered the Iraqi nuclear program. He later led the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which determined there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 invasion. This article was adapted from a longer on in the current issue the National Interest.
"If all of these activities are real, it would mean that Iran is moving faster and is closer to obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability than the hard facts suggest. .... [I]f Tehran were to believe that American -- not Israeli -- military action is imminent, it might slow work on the elements of its program that it thinks the world can observe." -- David Kay, Washington Post, September 14, 2008 Op Ed
OPED / David Kay
What's missing from Iran debateBuilding a security framework for a nuclear TehranBy David Kay • Special to The Washington Post • September 14, 2008
It would be impossible and foolish to predict what lies immediately ahead for Iran. Inflation runs rampant and domestic unrest is growing, but the leadership is banding together in support of the country's nuclear program. Threat assessment and war planning are (or should be) about best-guessing capabilities and intentions. When it comes to Iran, these calculations are difficult, but there are things we can -- and must -- figure out. Given what we know and what we can best-guess, it looks as if Iran is 80 percent of the way to a functioning nuclear weapon.
Every nuclear program needs raw materials, a way to refine them and, in the final stage, weaponization. Getting and enriching the materials is the hardest part; without this, a nuclear reaction is impossible. How does Iran's nuclear program measure up?
The situation is a bit murky, but we know, basically, that Tehran has a handle on the fissionable material. Iran imported significant amounts of raw uranium from China in 1991. It has also attempted to produce weapons-grade material, conducting secret enrichment efforts and acquiring designs, materials and samples of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment from the A.Q. Khan network. Plus, over the past 18 years, the Iranians have developed and tested state-of-the-art centrifuges and enrichment techniques. If Iran's 6,000 forthcoming new-design centrifuges were working for a year, the program could produce about five weapons. My best guess is that they are about two to four years away from accomplishing this.
Next comes weaponization. The fissionable material must be converted into metal and packaged. Here again, Iran has made substantial progress. What remains is to produce these elements in adequate numbers and amounts; combine them in an engineering design that ensures that they work and that fits on a missile; and gain confidence that the resulting weapons will get the job done.
All of this is public knowledge, but the answers to most of the important questions relating to intent and progress on crucial elements of weaponization are unknown. It's the only partially understood and suspected activities of Iran that are most alarming. Signs of these activities include detection by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors of samples of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium; more extensive plutonium separation than Iran has admitted; weapons design work; construction of a heavy-water reactor and its associated heavy-water production facility; design work on missile re-entry vehicles that seem to be for a nuclear weapon; and reports of yet-undiscovered programs and facilities.
If all of these activities are real, it would mean that Iran is moving faster and is closer to obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability than the hard facts suggest. Obtaining that last 20 percent of the elements needed to make a nuclear weapon would take perhaps one to two years, instead of the four to seven years needed if they were not.
While we know a lot more about Iran than we did about Iraq (before the Persian Gulf and Iraq wars), we still lack answers to the most important questions, including:
If Iran has decided or decides to acquire nuclear weapons, how long will it take to do so and how many could it produce per year?
How much foreign assistance has Iran received, and from whom did it receive it?
Does Iran have unknown clandestine nuclear facilities and, if so, how many? Doing what?
What are the real capabilities of Iran's various weapons-delivery options, particularly its missiles?
What are the command-and-control arrangements for Iran's nuclear program? Where is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in this mix?
This dirty-laundry list is one reason efforts to provide net assessments about where the program is have proved so contentious. The last U.S. attempt to produce a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, in December, led to a comedy remarkable even by Washington standards. Yet we are talking about a country with known nuclear ambitions and a track record of violating international obligations in pursuit of that goal.
Despite the unanswered questions, we have some pretty frightening knowledge about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Less clear are its intentions.
Tehran often claims to want only to pursue a civilian nuclear program. But it also says it wants to wipe Israel off the map. And Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with Ahmadinejad, sees nuclear "power" as a symbol of national pride. It's difficult to know what to believe.
What truly raises tensions, though, is Iran's worldview. Iranians have learned to fear the power of others and to believe that they must ultimately organize their world in a way that lessens the power of the states that pose the greatest threat to them. And Iran's essential national security threat has never been Israel. It is the United States.
My humble best guess is that Iran is pushing toward a nuclear-weapons capability as rapidly as it can. But if Tehran were to believe that American -- not Israeli -- military action is imminent, it might slow work on the elements of its program that it thinks the world can observe. Yet such temporizing would only be tactical. Its strategic goal is to acquire nuclear weapons to counter what it views as a real U.S. threat. Iran appears to believe that the United States is not willing to accept the validity and survival of the Iranian revolutionary state.
Of course, Iran does not exist in a vacuum. How Israel and the United States perceive the threat, based on their own historical memories and strategic priorities, figures significantly in just how messy this may get.
The context within which these national strategies and decisions are interacting is being reshaped by two factors. First, oil prices have exploded, greatly enriching Iran and making clear to the West the economic and political pain and destruction that could come from a serious disruption in the flow of oil. Second is Iran's belief that it has gained a strategic advantage against the United States as a result of its being tied down in Iraq, and against Israel, because of the tactical blunting, if not defeat, of its military in Lebanon.
Strategic objectives
The United States must figure out and articulate its strategic objectives regarding Iran's nuclear program. At present, its actions and rhetoric are often as conflicted as those of the Islamic Republic.
And while not all would agree with Sen. John McCain's assessment that the only thing worse than a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran would be Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, few in the mainstream of American politics seem ready to go on the record with a plan for "the day after" that does not involve military action.
Two concerns seem to be most absent from discussion of Iran's "nuclear future," whatever it is: First, what policies would limit any advantage, political or military, that Iran might gain from such weapons? Second, how do we begin to craft, with all the states of the region -- including Israel and Iran -- political, economic and security arrangements that recognize their varied interests and concerns and their often very different perspectives on what these are? In the end, we need to decide how we can perform damage control and create arrangements that take into account states' varied interests.
Figuring this out is not rocket science. But we must begin the process of discussion, consultation, planning and acting that will lay the groundwork for a future far different from either the conflicts of the past or the current path toward a regional conflagration that may well involve nuclear weapons.
The United States, along with all of the states in the Middle East, has to create security policies that guarantee that acts of aggression will not be allowed to threaten any state's survival while also beginning to build the economic institutions and policies that can create a future where war seems impossible. While Iran's economy suffers, engagement is more feasible.
What is hard is the actual act of stepping off the (probably sinking) ship we stand on to construct a very different vessel. This is one of those times in history when will is more important than brilliance and when determination to shape a different future is more vital than experience in rituals of the past.
The writer led the U.N. inspections after the Persian Gulf War that uncovered the Iraqi nuclear program. He later led the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which determined there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 invasion. This article was adapted from a longer on in the current issue the National Interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)