"Planen,
Vorbereitung und Einleitung oder Durchführung eines Angriffskrieges
oder eines Krieges unter Verletzung internationaler Verträge, Abkommen
oder Zusicherungen oder Beteiligungen an einem gemeinsamen Plan oder an
einer Verschwörung zur Ausführung einer der vorgenannten Handlungen"
"....In dieser Konvention bedeutet
Völkermord eine der folgenden Handlungen, die in der Absicht
begangen wird,
eine nationale, ethnische, rassische oder religiöse Gruppe als solche
ganz oder
teilweise zu zerstören: a) Tötung von Mitgliedern der Gruppe;
b) Verursachung
von schwerem körperlichem oder seelischem Schaden an Mitgliedern der
Gruppe; c) vorsätzliche Auferlegung von Lebensbedingungen für die
Gruppe, die
geeignet sind, ihre körperliche Zerstörung ganz oder teilweise
herbeizuführen;..."
Art
Exhibition Exhibition at the United Nations in which Laurie
Blum, an American artist
displayed some of her valuable works and paintings about Iranian
culture, 12-27 July 2007. READ MORE
S/AC.44/2004(2)/105/Add.1 (16 February 2006)
-
Second
Report + Note verbale dated 14 February 2006 from the Permanent Mission
to the I.R. of Iran to the UN addressed to the Chairman of
the Security Council Committee Established Pursuant to
Resolution
1540 (2004)
"...12.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a firm
advocate of
the regional Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (NWFZ) in the
Middle
East.
Indeed, it was the initiative of Iran that first proposed to the United
Nations the establishment of a Middle East NWFZ in 1974. Subsequently,
the United Nations General Assembly in its Twenty-ninth session adopted
the first resolution (3262(XXIX)) on the establishment of a
NWFZ
in the
region of the Middle East on 9 December 1974. Since 1980, this
resolution has been continuously adopted in the General Assembly by
consensus. Realization of a NWFZ treaty to cover the region
of
Middle East has been an unfulfilled objective due to the rejection of
Israel to join the NPT and to put its clandestine nuclear
facilities under the IAEA full scope safeguards."
Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War
BY Anthony H. Cordesman - Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) - Revised: November 19,
2007
U.S.
National Security and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the
21st Century.Summary
statement delivered by the Secretaries of Energy, Defense and
State, July 2007.Iran Nuclear Watch: "On July 24,
2007, the National Nuclear Security Administration
announced that it is delivering the Bush Administration's nuclear
weapons strategy to Congress. According to the NNSA press release, the
document reiterates that the US will maintain a nuclear weapons
stockpile into the future. It also describes the proposed Reliable
Replacement Warhead (RRW) as the best means for ensuring the future
nuclear deterrent. The summary
statement
delivered by the Secretaries of Energy, Defense and State says that
both North Korea and Iran's nuclear weapons program underscore the need
for US security guarantees to key allies around the world. It also says
that a credible U.S. nuclear capabilities "remain an indispensable part
of deterrence and an inmportant element in our effort to limit
proliferation." ... This statement lies in stark
contrast to the language in the Senate Armed Services Committee Report
on the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill.
The
report also references the difficulty of solving the Iran and North
Korea nuclear issues if Congress gives a green light to new US nuclear
weapons programs, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead.
Page
626 of the full report (pg. 648 in Adobe Acrobat pdf) reads:“Historically,
the United States has sought to prevent the development
of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear weapons states by being the world
leader for nonproliferation. Many critics and skeptics of the RRW,
including former Senator Sam Nunn, are deeply concerned that if
Congress gives a green light to this program, such an action will be
‘misunderstood by our allies, exploited by our adversaries, complicate
our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons . . . and
make resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all the more
difficult.’” The
continued US reliance on nuclear weapons as a
cornerstone of its national security policy is contrary to its
international obligations to pursue nuclear disaramament.
It is also
contrary to US interests in nonproliferation. It is hypocritical for
the US to tell countries that it can not pursue a nuclear program while
it is trying to revitalize its own arsenal. It also seems
a
worthwhile exercise to recall that the 2002
National Security Strategy
outlined the Bush administration's willingness to engage in preemptive
war, including the possibility of using nuclear weapons;
and to recall
the 2001 US Nuclear
Posture Review which outlined contingency plans for
use of nuclear weapons against seven named countries, including Iran
and other non-nuclear weapons states." See
also:
Iran: War or Privatization: All Out War or "Economic Conquest"? By Michel Chossudovsky, 04.07.08 "... A US-Israel
sponsored military
operation directed against Iran, would largely backlash on the economic
and financial interests of several of America's allies, including
Germany, Italy, France, and Japan..."
Seymour Hersh on covered operatons in Iran, Fresh Air from WHYY, 30.06.2008 ·This is far more revealing that hisarticle in the "New Yorker" and his interview with
Goodman. He says the covert operations are designed to create the
pretext to attack Iran with a view to regime change. He gives details
how MEK in being trained in Nevada by the US and how MEK leaders are
accumulating US funds received from the US in their personal bank
accounts in London. And much more.
Der nukleare Präventivschlag und die Weltkatastrophe - 09.06.2008 | GASTKOMMENTAR VON MARTIN
SENN (Die Presse) : "Israelische
Stimmen fordern den Einsatz der Atombombe gegen den Iran. Die Folgen
wären fürchterlich: für den Iran, für Israel und die Welt... Ein
nuklearer Angriff gegen die verschiedenen Komponenten des iranischen
Nuklearprogramms müsste eine Vielzahl von Zielen umfassen, die über das
gesamte Territorium der Islamischen Republik verteilt sind. Nachdem
sich diese Einrichtungen – wie etwa die Urankonvertierungsanlage in
Isfahan oder die nuklearen Forschungseinrichtungen in Teheran – zum
Teil in der Nähe oder inmitten von Ballungszentren befinden, würde ein
Nuklearangriff katastrophale Folgen für die Zivilbevölkerung in den
betroffenen Regionen nach sich ziehen..." Lesen Sie dazu auch: Art.II des Übereinkommens
vom 9. Dezember 1948 über die Verhütung und Bestrafung des Völkermordes: "....In dieser Konvention bedeutet
Völkermord eine der folgenden Handlungen, die in der Absicht
begangen wird,
eine nationale, ethnische, rassische oder religiöse Gruppe als solche
ganz oder
teilweise zu zerstören: a) Tötung von Mitgliedern der Gruppe;
b) Verursachung
von schwerem körperlichem oder seelischem Schaden an Mitgliedern der
Gruppe; c) vorsätzliche Auferlegung von Lebensbedingungen für die
Gruppe, die
geeignet sind, ihre körperliche Zerstörung ganz oder teilweise
herbeizuführen;..."
U.S. sidesteps questions on Israeli threat against Iran - Friday, June 6, 2008 - (Reuters) via Casmii - "Editor's note: The call by the deputy prime minister of
Israel for a military attack against Iran is a flagrant violation of
the UN charter and any preemptive military intervention would be a
crime against humanity as clearly spelled out by the Nuremeberg trials
of the Nazi leaders.
The US and and its European allies are however
silent in the face of this blatant threat of a crime against humanity
and choose to support or appease Israel which has a history of waging
illegal pre-emptive military attacks against its neighbours." -
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday sidestepped
questions
about an Israeli threat to attack Iranian nuclear sites if it continues
uranium enrichment, saying it would not respond to "hypotheticals."
Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz was quoted as telling an
Israeli newspaper that an attack on Iran looks "unavoidable" given the
apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with
bomb-making potential..." MEHR >>
Can the US Accept Iran as a Regional Power? Iran reacts to NIE report. -
by Pepe Escobar / Paul Jay (source: The Real News) via CASMII
- December 24, 2007 Based in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Pepe Escobar
writes The Roving Eye for Asia Times Online. He has reported from Iraq,
Iran, Central Asia, US and China. He is the author of the recently
published Red Zone Blues. Pepe is a regular analyst for The Real
News. For watching the video, see here.
The NIE Watergates Bush - by Saul Landau; Progreso Weekly; December 24, 2007 - ZNet | Foreign Policy(20 December 2007)
The intelligence report served to discredit Bush, which reduces chances
of an imminent war with Iran, but don’t fool yourself -- it doesn’t
change fundamental U.S. policy.
“Look,
Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous, if
they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” --George
Bush, Dec. 4, 2007
“We
have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much
of it, or what functions it serves. … Bullshitters seek to convey a
certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether
anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their
end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are
irrelevant.” --Prof. Harry Frankfurt (1986)
In
early December, an intelligence report served as the instrument to
disgrace Bush and Cheney. Behind this apparently benign act stood the
relieved super rich and their government guardian who saw the reckless
policies of Bush and Cheney as a threat to their power and fortunes. In the early 1970s, the Establishment worried about Nixon. He brought a California
crowd into the White House who didn’t consult the bastions of old power
and wealth. Then, “Deep Throat” serendipitously emerged to reveal to
Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein details of
Nixon’s involvement in a criminal break-in at Democratic Party
Headquarters in Washington’s
Watergate complex, and of a subsequent White House cover up. In August
1974, Nixon -- facing impeachment -- resigned. The power structure
breathed a collective sigh of relief. In
December 2007, intelligence boss Mike McConnell released a National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report that humiliated Bush and Cheney. By
making facts about the non-functioning of Iran’s
nuke program public, the NIE removed the Bush zealots’ ostensible
reason for starting another war. The “experts” concluded “with high
confidence” that Iran
had shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003, thus nullifying the
Bush’s pretext for bombing that country. The spooks also deduced that
Iran might make a weapon by 2015 -- if it reactivated its dormant
program. Compare
that report with Bush’s September claim that Iran’s nuclear program
could ignite World War III; reminiscent of Cheney’s 2002 rhetoric to
show why Iraq needed invading because Saddam Hussein had tried to buy
yellowcake uranium in Niger to make a nuclear WMD. Bush and Cheney also
scoffed at intelligence reports that cast major doubt on these
allegations. Bush still rejects the conclusion that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons production. (He also rejects evolution.) By
making this NIE public, the CIA further weakened Bush’s already damaged
credibility. He no longer intimidates and he stands exposed as a fraud. The
CIA informed Bush in August of its benign findings, but he shrugged off
the facts and continued to insist on war as his answer to a
non-existent threat. So, McConnell released the report which, for Bush,
compares with his twins making the centerfold of Playboy -- on the
humiliation scale. The intelligence community sucker punched the Great Intimidator -- in public. Their NIE averred implicitly that Iran’s
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hated Holocaust denier and only
remaining axis of evil personage, had told the truth about Iran
not developing nuclear weapons. Conversely, Bush and Cheney, leaders of
the World Alliance for God and Good (WAGG), prevaricated through their
proverbial teeth. The NIE derailed the White House policy of the bombing of Iran
and led to a prolonged scream from neo con heavies like Norman
Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, and Frank Gaffney of the Center for
Security Policy. They now bleat on TV about “treason” in high places
(CIA) and the nation’s desperate need to bomb Iran immediately. Douglas
Feith, Bush’s former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July
2001 until he resigned in August 2005, spoke to the American Enterprise
Institute in Washington in December and defended his own failed policies in Iraq.
Some neo cons demand a “Team B” report to invalidate the NIE, an
equivalent of former CIA Chief William Casey’s ploy to resurrect the
Soviet threat. In
1980, after U.S. intelligence concluded the USSR
posed less of a threat to the West than in previous decades, Casey
handpicked another team of “experts” who predictably found the
declining Soviet Union more dangerous than ever. Team B thugs backed
Reagan’s aggressive posture to build more missiles and a Star Wars
defense. Bush
and Cheney, like Reagan and Casey, disregard their intelligence
services -- for which taxpayers pay $40 billion per year -- and instead
relied on Israel’s Mossad, whose spies rejected the CIA findings.
Israeli intelligence clings to its claim that Iran will soon build a
nuke. For
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak publicizing the NIE report meant a
“blow to the groin” of Israel. (Truth is a kick in the balls? Bombing
is good for Israeli manhood?) Will Bush now secretly encourage Israel
to use some its own nuclear stockpile to launch a “preemptive strike”
against Iran? For Bush, good nations behave obediently. England and
now France, for example, should possess nuclear weapons. Sort-of-good
Pakistan still rates approval (obedient by mouth, which is good
enough); and of course, beloved Israel -- with 200 or more nukes. Iran, the only remaining member of Bush’s “axis of evil,” began punching the United States
in the fist with its face in 1953 when Iranians brazenly elected a
democratic government. The CIA and their British equivalent in the name
of anti-communism and in the interest of the oil companies overthrew
that government and set up a puppet Shah, who ruled despotically until
1979 when militant Muslims dumped him and established a theocracy. In
1980, Iranian militants held CIA and other U.S. officials hostage for more than a year -- thus humiliating numero uno. The President and most presidential aspirants follow the U.S. axiom. To keep its status, Washington
without casus belli invades and occupies other countries. Those who
dare challenge such blatantly illegal behavior now become
Islamofascists. Acting
in the Lord’s name, U.S. presidents took revenge for Iran’s insolent
behavior. After failing to revive the Shah’s rule, the U.S. backed the
now hated but then useful Saddam Hussein who dutifully, and with U.S.
aid, invaded Iran in 1980. After almost a decade of Iraq-Iran
slaughter, the United States punished Iran with sanctions -- while
covertly selling it missiles to support anti-Sandinista rebels in
Nicaragua. 9/11
allowed Bush to declare a permanent and perpetual war against
terrorism, thus undermining traditional foreign policy methods for
unabashed aggression. His neo con advisers usurped power from the
traditional Establishment, much as Nixon did with his California
outsiders. The neo cons invaded the intelligence apparatus, much as
Nixon’s Plumbers assumed FBI and CIA tasks. (Plumbers sealed “leaks” --
to the press.) CREEP (Committee and Finance Committee to Re-elect the
President) allowed Nixon his own private budget as well as a White
House intelligence and police operation. Such behavior made the
traditional agency heads seriously pissed off. Bush
and Cheney’s war-loving intellectuals like Richard Perle, Paul
Wolfowitz and Feith manipulated intelligence in order to use 9/11 to
generate fear. They pushed the country into war with Iraq -- which had
nothing to do with 9/11. Even after the invasion turned sour, the neo
cons pursued their plan to attack Iran. Now discredited, these men
writhe from the NIE’s kick to their cerebral groins. The
repercussions from the revelation will play out in Europe as well.
Bush’s plan to place missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic as a
defensive shield against Iran’s “nuclear threat” has drawn the ire of
Russian President Putin. Russia’s leader sees Bush repeating Truman and
Churchill’s Cold War policies of 60 years ago, using a non-existent
threat (Iran) as a pretext to militarily encircle Russia. In 1947,
Truman declared the USSR an imminent threat to attack Western Europe
while the Soviets still licked their wounds after losing more than 20
million people in World War II. Repetition of history with a new
metaphor! The groin kick -- an intelligence report to the balls --
should help abate the “hate Iran” fever that replaced the 2001-2003
“hate Iraq” zeal. The NIE revealed to the U.S. public that Bush and
Cheney were dangerous bullshitters who spread malicious lies about
Iran. Previously, they had accused Teheran with providing Iraqi
insurgents bombs to kill U.S. military personnel, a line that remains
in Bush’s verbal arsenal. Sadly,
presidential hopefuls from both Parties, excepting Ron Paul and Dennis
Kucinich, still buy into the anti-Iran axiom. They agree with Bush that
the United States should not permit other nations to help anti-U.S.
insurgents albeit Washington feels duty bound -- by God? -- to help
pro-U.S. insurgents fight bad countries, like the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan in the 1980s. Sound like bullshit? The
imperial bullshit level has surpassed the feeble imaginations of
Cheney, Bush and even the presidential candidates. It emanates from the
$700 billon smelly military budget pile, passed by Congress even though
no nation poses a threat. The
NIE served to discredit Bush, which reduces chances of an imminent war
with Iran, but don’t fool yourself -- it doesn’t change fundamental
U.S. policy. Saul
Landau is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and a senior
fellow of the Transnational Institute. His latest book is A Bush and
Botox World
'Funds to deal with Iran lacking'Former deputy defense minister Sneh: 2008 budget does not provide enough to protect citizens of Israel.
"I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel
would attack Iran," Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and senior
adviser to three US presidents, George W. Bush among them, told the
American Newsweek magazine in an article published Friday. Citing conversations he had in Israel with officials in Mossad
and the Israeli defense establishment, Riedel concluded that "Israel is
not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened." While some US experts doubt Israel's ability to tackle Iran
alone, David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International
Security in Washington, was quoted by Newsweek as saying that
although information on the exact location of Iran's nuclear facility
is incomplete, Israel's air strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear
facility on September 6, widely discussed in foreign media outlets,
could be seen as a test run for any future strike on Iran's facilities,
as well as a direct warning to Teheran. Riedel told the magazine his impression that Israel would
venture a strike on Iran on its own was formed before the publication
of the joint US intelligence agencies' report, the National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE). "This [the NIE] makes it [a strike on
Iran] even more likely," he said. Since the publication of the NIE, which reversed a previous
American assessment by concluding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons
program in 2003, leaders worldwide have been adjusting their publicly
stated positions on the Iranian nuclear issue. Even inside the US, President Bush attempted some damage
control by stating a day after the report's publication that "Iran was
dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous." In Israel, responses to the report ranged from subtle criticism
of the report's conclusions to outright slamming of the US intelligence
community's capabilities, so much so that on last Sunday's cabinet
meeting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert instructed his ministers to refrain
from commenting any further on the report. In the international scene, Russia's decision to renew fuel
shipments to Iran main nuclear facility at Bushehr was interpreted by
many anlysts as stemming directly from the NIE's publication; another
development possibly stemming from the report is Russia and China's
hardened position on further sanctions against Teheran. In Teheran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quick to
capitalize on the NIE, calling it an "Iranian victory" and demanding
that the United States publicly apologize for its previous bellicose
stance. Uzi Arad, a former Mossad official and adviser to opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, told Newsweek
that on a recent trip to Moscow, a Russian general poked fun at the
naiveté of the NIE, commenting that if the Iranians had halted weapons
development in 2003 it was partly because they were satisfied with
progress there and wanted to devote investment to harder parts of the
nuclear equation, like enrichment. "The irony is that the effect of this report may be
self-negating - by itself it will accelerate Iranian acquisition of
nuclear weapons," Arad told the magazine- This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847398265&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Wer narrt wen? Behrouz Khosrozadeh (Neues Deutschland) Dec 15, 2007 Im Mai 2005 hatten die USA
das Verlangen Irans nach einer Atomwaffenproduktion als sehr hoch
eingestuft. Im November 2007 steht dieselbe »high confidence« dafür,
dass Teheran das Programm im Herbst 2003 (während der Amtszeit
Präsident Khatamis) einstellte. Es stünde auch mit »high confidence«
fest, dass der Stopp mindestens bis Mitte 2007 angehalten hat – bis zur
Mitte der Präsidentschaft von Ahmadinedschad. Zuvor hatte Bush vor
einem Dritten Weltkrieg gewarnt. Wer hält die internationale
Gemeinschaft zum Narren, die Bush-Administration oder der Iran?Irans Entscheidung, das Atomwaffenprogramm zu stoppen, sei das
Ergebnis des internationalen Drucks, so der Bericht der
US-Geheimdienste. Daraus wird geschlussgefolgert, den zivilen Druck auf
Teheran zu verschärfen. Es ist eine bewusst falsche Lesart des
Berichts, denn der Iran stand 2003 nicht unter hohem Druck. Die
Übergabe der Nuklearakte durch die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde an
den UN-Sicherheitsrat erfolgte 2006 und die erste Resolution (Nr. 1696)
gegen den Iran Ende Juli 2006. Irans Atomwaffenprogramm, wenn es eines
gegeben hat, wurde kurz nach dem Fall Saddam Husseins eingestellt. Es
richtete sich folglich wohl gegen Saddams Irak, der den Iran 1980
überfiel. Iran hätte somit weder Israel vernichten, noch Nachbarn
bedrohen wollen.Ein persisches Sprichwort besagt, man könne den Kopf des Gegners
auch mit Watte abschneiden. Vielleicht kennt man solche Gedanken auch
in den USA: Mit Verweis auf den Bericht will Bush das Tor für
Sanktionen offen halten. Innenpolitisch könnte es ein verzweifelter
Schachzug im Hinblick auf die Präsidentschaftswahl sein, die die
Republikaner zu verlieren drohen. Die Administration wäre von einem
Kriegszwang gegen den Iran, den sie selbst entfachte, entlastet.Dem Bericht zufolge ist der Iran – entgegen der
Dämonisierungskampagne der amerikanischen NeoCons und der Israel-Lobby
– ein nach Kosten-Nutzen-Kalkulation handelnder rationaler Akteur.
Optimistisch betrachtet könnten die USA begriffen haben, dass in der
Region kein Weg am Iran vorbeiführt. Schließlich gehe es um die
Sicherung der Energiezufuhr, Stabilität, Existenz Israels und Abwehr
von Al-Qaida. Keines dieser Ziele kann ohne den Iran erreicht werden.
Im Irak sind die Anschläge auf US-Soldaten enorm zurückgegangen. Das
Land hat seine Apokalypse hinter sich. Im Libanon setzt sich Teheran
konstruktiv für einen Konsenspräsidenten ein. Außenpolitisch hat sich
Iran trotz aggressiver Rhetorik korrekt verhalten. Es wäre mithin an der Zeit, dem Projekt einer solidarischen
Staatengemeinschaft im Nahen Osten nachzugehen. Ein Projekt, das im
Gegensatz zu zahllosen US-Konzepten (Großer Naher Osten, Neuer Naher
Osten) nicht darauf bedacht ist, Sunniten gegen Schiiten aufzuhetzen
und einen innerpalästinensischen Bürgerkrieg zu Gunsten Israels
anzufachen. Ein Projekt, das sich mit einem atomwaffenfreien Nahen
Osten beschäftigt und dabei auch Israels 200 atomare Sprengköpfe nicht
ignoriert. Ein Projekt, das keine »Annapolis-Konferenz« ins Leben ruft,
damit Israel eine Woche später den Bau von 300 Wohnungen in
Ostjerusalem freigibt. Ein Projekt, das den Interessen aller
Beteiligten, einschließlich der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und
Israels, Rechnung trägt. Eine Alternative gibt es nicht. Der im Iran geborene Politologe publizierte im Oktober 2007: »Die Ayatollahs und der Große Satan«.
Friday, December 14, 2007 -CASMII Germany Press Release
The key finding of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) by 16
American intelligence agencies released earlier this month has
triggered an overdue rethinking of the West’s Iran policy by stating
that Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. Senior policymakers from
key European countries have since called for a diplomatic offensive. During a recent visit
to Tehran, the European Parliament (EP) Delegation “stressed the
importance of seizing the favourable political moment in order to make
progress towards a satisfactory, peaceful solution to this problem, in
accordance with NPT and IAEA regulations”. Angelika Beer (MEP), the Chair of the Delegation, said that “the
[NIE] report explicitly says, Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful in
nature”. She reiterated Iran’s right to pursue a nuclear energy
programme and has called for the return of Iran’s nuclear dossier, from
the UN Security Council, to the auspices of International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA). Following her return to Germany, Beer, a senior EU
foreign and security policy diplomat, declared
that “… in the nuclear dispute the EU must urgently find back its
autonomous way – beyond George Bush’s on-going war rhetoric”. She also
warned that further UN or unilateral sanctions would exacerbate the
situation. In the same vein, the Chairman of the German Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Ruprecht Polenz, has emphasized
that “ … there is now the chance for talks”. He proposed returning the
Iranian nuclear dossier to the jurisdiction of the IAEA. Polenz, who
was actively involved in the negotiations between the EU-3 and Iran,
considers a new round of UN sanctions both unhelpful and not
enforceable among EU and UN Security Council members. He further said
that the time for direct US-Iran talks is ripe. Both Beer and Polenz
have underscored that such negotiations should start without any
preconditions. The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
(CASMII) calls for the IAEA’s sole and legitimate authority over Iran’s
nuclear programme as well as unconditional talks between the US and
Iran on all issues of concern. The proposed policy reorientation
towards Iran from confrontation to dialogue is the only way to regional
and global peace and stability. Security Council sanctions on Iran are
clearly illegitimate, they harm Iranian people and are a prelude to
war. It is vital that these recommendations are heeded without delay
and SC resolutions and sanctions on Iran are removed. For more information or to contact CASMII please visit http://www.campaigniran.org[END]
Führende westliche Politiker plädieren für einen neuen Kurs in der
Iran-Politik - von CASMII
Deutschland – Pressemitteilung - 14. Dezember 2007 -
Der zu Beginn dieses Monats von 16 amerikanischen Nachrichtendiensten
veröffentlichte National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), nach der Iran
kein Atomwaffenprogramm unterhält, hat im Westen zu einem überfälligen
Überdenken des bisherigen Kurses in der Iran-Politik geführt. Führende Politiker
wichtiger EU-Staaten plädieren seither auf eine diplomatische Offensive. Während ihres letzten Besuches in Teheran rief eine
Delegation des Europäischen Parlaments (EP) auf, „diesen wichtigen politischen
Moment zu nutzen, um möglichst schnell eine friedliche und zufriedenstellende
Lösung – in Übereinstimmung mit dem NPT [Atomwaffensperrvertrag] und den
Bestimmungen der IAEA [Internationale Atomenergie-Agentur] – zu finden“. Angelika Beer (Mitglied des EP), Vorsitzende der Delegation, sagte „der
(NIE-)Bericht besagt ausdrücklich, dass das iranische Atomwaffenprogramm
friedlicher Natur ist.“ Sie wiederholte nachdrücklich, dass Iran das Recht habe,
ein Atomenergieprogramm zu verfolgen. Darüber hinaus forderte Beer die Rückgabe
des Iran-Atomdossiers vom UN-Sicherheitsrat an die Federführung der IAEA. Bei
ihrer Rückkehr nach Deutschland erklärte
Beer, führende EU-Diplomatin für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: „Im
Atomstreit muss die EU dringend zu einem eigenständigen Weg – jenseits der
anhaltenden Kriegsrhetorik von George Bush – zurückfinden.“ Zudem warnte sie
davor, dass zukünftige UN- oder bilaterale europäische Sanktionen die Situation
nur verschärfen würden. Ruprecht Polenz, Vorsitzender des Auswärtigen Ausschusses des Deutschen
Bundestages, betonte
: „Es gibt jetzt die Chance für Gespräche“. Auch er schlug vor, das
iranische Nukleardossier an die zuständige IAEA zurückzugeben. Polenz war aktiv
an den Verhandlungen zwischen den EU-3 und Iran beteiligt. Neue Sanktionen hält
er derzeit für wenig hilfreich und weder in der EU noch im Sicherheitsrat für
durchsetzbar. Die Zeit sei reif für direkte Gespräche zwischen den USA und Iran.
Sowohl Beer als auch Polenz hoben hervor, dass diese Gespräche ohne
Vorbedingungen stattfinden sollten. Die Campaign against Sanctions and Military Interventions in Iran
(CASMII, dt. Kampagne gegen Sanktionen und militärische
Intervention in Iran) fordert die alleinige und gesetzmäßige Kontrolle der IAEA
über Irans Atomprogramm sowie bedingungslose Gespräche zwischen den USA und Iran
– in allen Streitpunkten. Ferner ist ein Kurswechsel in der Iran-Politik die
einzige Möglichkeit, Frieden und Stabilität – regional sowie global –
sicherzustellen. Die Sanktionen des UN-Sicherheitsrates gegenüber Iran sind
illegitim: Sie schaden der iranischen Bevölkerung und dienen dazu,
Kriegshandlungen den Weg zu ebnen. Daher ist es notwendig, dass diese
Forderungen ohne Verzögerungen umgesetzt und die Resolutionen sowie Sanktionen
des Sicherheitsrates gegenüber Iran aufgehoben werden. [ENDE]
US-Diskussion um Iran-Bericht(Deutschlandfunk) via CASMII - Deutsch - Dec 5, 2007 Pressekonferenz des
US-Präsidenten George W. Bush nach der Veröffentlichung des
Geheimdienstberichtes | Amerikanische Politiker fordern Kehrtwende in
Iran-Politik | Seymour Hersh warnt dennoch vor einem Angriff Israels ›››
Die durch den jüngsten Geheimdienstbericht wegen ihrer Iran-Politik
unter Druck geratene Bush-Regierung bekommt Beistand von überraschender
Seite: Ausgerechnet Henry Kissinger ließ kein gutes Haar an den
Schlapphüten – und an der Interpretation ihrer Erkenntnisse in den
Medien.
Der Schluss, dass von Teheran keine Gefahr ausgehe, weil es
sein Atomwaffenprogramm 2003 eingestellt habe, sei falsch, schrieb der
ehemalige Sicherheitsberater von Präsident Richard Nixon und
Außenminister unter dessen Nachfolger Gerald Ford in der „Washington
Post“. Kissinger sieht vielmehr Zeichen dafür, dass ein subtiler, am
Ende viel gefährlicherer Plan am Werk sei, der darin bestehe, zunächst
genügend bombenfähiges Nuklearmaterial anzureichern und erst dann die
Produktion von Sprengköpfen aufzunehmen.
Gleichzeitig übt Kissinger scharfe Kritik an der Art und Weise, wie die
16 US-Geheimdienste mit ihren Erkenntnissen umgingen. Statt sich als
Teil der Exekutive zu verstehen, wollten sie sie nun auch
kontrollieren. Die Geheimdienstler müssen zu ihrer traditionellen
Anonymität zurückkehren, forderte Kissinger. Ausgerechnet, spricht doch
hier ein Mann, der bis heute versucht, seine enge und alles andere als
ruhmreiche Zusammenarbeit mit den US-Geheimdiensten zu verschleiern. In
Frankreich, Spanien, Brasilien, Argentinien und Uruguay hätten viele
gerne näher gewusst, welche Rolle Kissinger bei der Unterstützung von
brutalen Militärregimen spielte, als er selbst noch Teil der
US-Regierung war. Dieser Ruf hat den 1923 im fränkischen Fürth geborenen Kissinger, der
mit seinen jüdischen Eltern vor den Nazis nach Amerika floh, nie davon
abgehalten, sich aktiv in die öffentliche Debatte um die
US-Außenpolitik einzumischen. In einem Interview mit Bob Woodward
bekannte er zudem, dass er Bush und dessen Vize Dick Cheney bei deren
Feldzug im Irak berate. Ein Sieg über die Widerständler sei die einzig
wahre Exit- Strategie, proklamierte er noch 2005. Gegenüber Teheran
will er dagegen einen gemäßigteren Kurs einschlagen: Amerika sei es
sich selbst schuldig, die Möglichkeit der Normalisierung der
Beziehungen zum Iran vollständig zu untersuchen. Das jedoch, glaubt
Kissinger, sei nun Aufgabe der nächsten US-Regierung. Genauso, wie die
Balance zwischen den Produzenten und den Nutzern von
Geheimdiensterkenntnissen wieder herzustellen. Matthias B. Krause
Major cleric: NIE report neither a big victory nor something without importance - Tehran, Dec 14, 2007 - IRNA - Substitute Friday prayers leader of Tehran Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami
said here that Tehran takes the NIE report neither as a big political
victory nor something without importance. "We consider the report of 16 US intelligence institutions
neither as a big political victory nor as something (of) minor
(importance)," said Ayatollah Khatami in an address to large groups of
Friday prayers worshipers here at Tehran University campus. Ayatollah Khatami said the report has some positive points. "The report bears positive points: One is that it explicitly
acknowledges that Iran does not have nuclear weapons today. Moreover,
it admits that since 2003 Iran's nuclear energy has been peaceful. Another point, which is a source of honor for our system, is
that they have reported that in 2007 Iran made a serious jump in the
field of nuclear technology. The acknowledgements by the enemy is a
success. "There are yet inaccurate points in the report: One is that
(it maintains) Iran had perhaps been seeking nuclear weapons prior to
2003. That's an American lie which has been raised repeatedly by the US
statesmen. They have claimed that Iran had stopped seeking nuclear
weapons on the US pressure, which is another lie," said Ayatollah
Khatami. The cleric said Iran has the right to be pessimistic over the enemy. "Principally, we should be pessimistic towards the enemy. If it
bore smile on its face, we should say that's satanic. So, we consider
the report neither a big political victory nor something of less value
and we maintain our vigilance. Our Islamic system carefully watches all
movements of the enemy." Elsewhere in his remarks, Ayatollah Khatami said assassination of
a senior Lebanese commander General El-Haj was in line with the plots
to escalate tension in the country. "Undoubtedly, the Zionist regime is to be blamed for the act. The criminals do not wish to see Lebanon in peace," he declared. He then termed as a "political victory" the failure of the US
Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his recent Manama visit to lure
support of Arabs in opposing Iran. "Gates had gone there (to Manama) to form an Arab-Israeli camp
against Iran but with God's grace, he spoke so humiliatingly in the
Conference that the participants ridiculed him. We consider it as a
political victory that our Arab neighbors have come to the belief that
Iran is their powerful friend and they want to have a peaceful
co-existence with it. Iran too has shown that it has been their best
friend after the triumph of the Islamic Revolution". He said the neighbors should be cautious that certain countries'
claims, raised every now and then, that they own the three Iranian
islands is a "US trap." "They
are constantly wishing to keep the issue so as to fan flames of
conflict, which we hope neighbors will be watchful." He also lashed out at the US in removing last week some proof and
evidence on interrogation and torture of the Guantanamo inmates as
acknowledged by the CIA Chief. "That's a dark stain for the US. (The US
President George W.) Bush personally orders torture. They bring the
inmates under torture and film it, then remove all traces of the crime
and claim they defend human rights. This is seriously a fiasco for
western democracy." He also ridiculed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in claiming
that Britain will take its forces our of Basra by next two weeks.
"That's a sweet fruit of Iraqi people's resistance. This proves that if they resist the enemy will start to escape."
He added, "At the same time, Brown has claimed they will remain in
Afghanistan for another 10 years. We tell Brown, rest assured that you
cannot remain long in Afghanistan too and will escape from there
without gaining anything. The reason for it is your claim that you
wanted to be in Afghanistan to reduce poppy cultivation, while it has
been tripled."
He also ridiculed the occupiers' false claim of campaign against
terrorism. "You said you want to fight terrorism. We have reliable
evidence that you are cooperating with Taliban and provide the militia,
which is an outstanding example of terrorism, with money so as to
remain in power for another short time. That's too a British-style lie.
Thanks God, our nation is for ages resentful and hateful of the old
colonialist."
1420**1771
Washington DC - The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate's assertion
that Iran currently does not have a nuclear weapons program has caused
much frustration in Israel. Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh
referred to the report as a lie at a recent breakfast in New York, and
Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer reportedly "doesn't buy"
its findings. Though the report aggravates Israel's effort to compel
Washington to pursue an increasingly harsh line against Tehran, all is
not lost for Israel. In fact, despite these initial knee-jerk
reactions, the NIE may very well end up being a blessing in disguise
for the Jewish state by pulling Israel out of its state of paralysis
vis-à-vis Iran. Download PDF version:
Study: U.S., Israel should begin planning strike on Iran nuclear sites - By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent - 11 Dec 2007 - The
report, by a former deputy head of the National Security Council, Chuck
Freilich, says Israel and the U.S. should discuss nuclear-crisis
scenarios between Israel and Iran. The report, entitled "Speaking About
the Unspeakable," was released over the weekend by the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy. Freilich assumes that
detailed talks between the U.S. and Israel on Iran do not extend beyond
exchanges of intelligence, coordination of diplomatic moves and the
supply of sophisticated weapons to Israel. According to
Freilich, a lack of symmetry exists between the U.S. and Israel on the
Iranian threat, although both use similar rhetoric toward it. From
Israel's perspective, Iran presents a potential existential threat, so
its nuclear plans must be stopped at almost any price. In contrast, the
U.S. is disturbed by the implications of nuclear weapons in Iran but
does not see it as an existential threat. In Freilich's view,
this difference in evaluations dictates the nature of the dialogue. The
U.S. is leery about talks with Israel on military action against Iran,
and Israel is concerned about talks on security alternatives if Iran's
nuclear status is accepted. Freilich lists the alternatives;
he believes that diplomacy and sanctions have a slim chance of success.
He mentions a quasi-military alternative such as a naval blockade or
secret sabotage action, an Israeli or American military action, or
coming to terms with a nuclear Iran, with the U.S. giving security
assurances to Israel. He opposes the proposal that Israel move to an
open nuclear policy to deter Iran. Freilich says Israel would
prefer that the U.S. attack Iran. He notes that if Israel believes it
can successfully attack Iran, Israel fears that the U.S. would veto the
plan, so Israel would not unveil the scheme ahead of time. The U.S.
would also keep secret from Israel any intention of attacking Iran. Freilich
believes that despite these mutual reservations, detailed discussions
between the U.S. and Israel should be held on possible military action
against Iran because of the need to separate forces if Israel attacks
Iran and U.S. forces are in the way. In addition, Iran in any case
would see the U.S. and Israel as cooperating and would respond against
both. Freilich proposes a dialogue on Iran's possible
responses, on terror attacks and the disruption of oil shipments from
the Gulf to the West. But he also seeks a dialogue on how to live with
a nuclear Iran. Related articles: Chronology of Iran's nuclear program Envoy: UN may have deal on third sanctions resolution against Iran French FM: France is not ruling out a military strike on Iran
Speaking about the Unspeakable: U.S.-Israeli Dialogue on Iran's Nuclear Program
Chuck Freilich Format: PDF, 44 Pages Published: December 2007
Price:Free Download File Size: 548 K
Despite
the longstanding and ever-evolving "special relationship" between the
United States and Israel, the two allies do not appear to have engaged
in substantive discussions on key facets of their most pressing mutual
concern, the Iranian nuclear threat. Specifically, there has been
little if any dialogue on the possibility of military action if the
diplomatic route comes to a dead end, nor on the possible means of
living with a nuclear Iran should both countries decide to refrain from
military action.
In this Policy Focus -- the second entry in The Washington Institute's
series "Agenda: Iran" -- former Israeli deputy national security
advisor Chuck Freilich explains the significant obstacles to such
dialogue and proposes means of surmounting them. Most of these
obstacles center on each country's concerns about how the other would
interpret such discussions, and how these interpretations would in turn
affect their ability and willingness to conduct diplomatic and military
action, either independently or in tandem. Overcoming these concerns
sooner rather than later is crucial if the United States and Israel are
to effectively address the most important issue they have ever faced
together.
NIAC Memo: Can the NIE Evade the Risk for War? -
Dr. Farideh Farhi
-
Dec 05, 2007
Washington DC - The NIE report that was released on December 3
regarding Iran’s nuclear program will obviously be greeted with a sigh
of relief by many who have been worried about the U.S. hardliners’ push
for military action against Iran. The report judges with high
confidence that Iran currently does not have a nuclear weapons program.
It further states its lack of knowledge about Iran’s intent to develop
nuclear weapons. Also, while it judges with moderate confidence that
“Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly
enriched uranium] sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame,” it goes on
to say “agencies recognize the possibility that this capability many
not be attained until after 2015.” Finally the report judges with high
confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and
reprocessing enough plutonium (presumably via the planned heavy water
reactor in Arak) for a weapon before about 2015.
Download PDF version:
Here
are some selected quotes from Members of Congress to the National
Intelligence Estimate and President Bush's response to the NIE.
“In
October, President Bush raised the specter of World War III with Iran
because of its pursuit of a nuclear weapon months after he had been
told by our own intelligence community it was likely Iran had halted
its weapons program in 2003.
“After all that Americans have been
through, for this President to knowingly disregard or misrepresent
intelligence about an issue of war and peace, is outrageous. It’s
exactly what he did in the run up to the war in Iraq in consistently
exaggerating intelligence suggesting that Iraq had WMD, while failing
to tell the American people about intelligence concluding that it did
not. It further undermines America’s credibility around the world – and
the government’s credibility here at home – at a time when that
credibility is at an all-time low. And it injects more tension and
instability into the Middle East at a time when we should be doing
everything in our power to prevent that region from spiraling out of
control.” Senator Joseph Biden (Delaware) December 4, 2007 “At
first blush, this looks like a good news story. Good because the
intelligence community was willing to reconsider an important
intelligence judgment. More importantly, it's good news that Iran
doesn't appear to be currently working on a bomb.” Senator Kit Bond (Missouri) December 3, 2007
"I
vehemently disagree with the president that nothing has changed and
therefore nothing in American policy has to change. He should seize
this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy using both carrots and
sticks.” Senator Hilary Clinton (New York) December 4, 2007
“On
Iran and the NIE report, I think we've got a couple of things that I
think are very important and worth noting. One, is we no longer have to
have a policy that's either based by hype and fear, but can now be
clear-eyed and hardheaded as it approaches the Iranians. We do not have
to operate from fear or weakness. We have strength here. And I think
the NIE report shows that.” Representative Rahm Emanuel (Illinois-5) December 4, 2007
"Iran's
nuclear program remains a serious concern but it is clear from the
[intelligence estimate] that vigorous and coordinated diplomacy is the
right way to approach it.” Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) December 3, 2007
“The
United States must employ a comprehensive strategy that uses all
elements of its foreign policy arsenal, in particular offering ‘direct,
unconditional and comprehensive talks’ with Iran – where all issues,
ours and Iran’s, are on the table, including offering Iran a credible
way back from the fringes of the international community, security
guarantees, and other incentives. Our strategy must be one focused on
direct and comprehensive engagement and diplomacy…backed by the
leverage of international pressure, military options, isolation and
containment. Now is the time for America to act in light of the NIE
report and the momentum generated by the Annapolis Middle East meeting
last week.” Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) December 3, 2007
“This
newest information supports what I have said all along: We need to give
diplomacy with Iran more of a chance. I continue to favor dialogue
between our two countries, in contrast to the Administration’s
belligerent and stiff-necked refusal to talk with Tehran. And I believe
we need to use every means at our disposal – economic, political and
diplomatic – to persuade Iranians that peaceful development of energy
options, free of any hint of military use, is well within reach.
“In
its unclassified report, the intelligence community has judged that
Iran makes its decisions about a nuclear weapons program based on a
cost-benefit analysis. This suggests that Tehran may be open to a
combination of pressure and incentives to keep it from returning to
developing a nuclear arsenal. And the latest publicly-available
intelligence indicates that it will take longer for Iran to produce
sufficient materials for a nuclear weapon than previously thought. So
we have more time – beyond the end of the current Administration – to
continue to push for this mixture of pressure and incentives." Representative Tom Lantos (CA-12) December 4, 2007
"It
is absolutely clear that this administration and President Bush
continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. They need,
now, to aggressively move on the diplomatic front. They should have
stopped the rattling -- should never have started it.” Senator Barack Obama (Illinois) December 4, 2007
"While
we should harbor no illusions about the intentions of some Iranian
leaders, the new Iran NIE suggests there is time for a new policy
toward Iran that deters it from restarting its nuclear program while
also improving relations overall." Representative Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) December 3, 2007
“President
Bush’s heated rhetoric on Iran – including comments about a potential
World War III – is even more outrageous now that we know the
intelligence community had informed him that it believes Iran had
stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago. This is the latest
in a long line of inaccurate and misleading comments that got us into
the Iraq war to begin with. They further diminish the credibility of a
President with a dangerous record of overstating threats.“In light of
yesterday’s remarkable new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, I
urge the President at his press conference today to announce a
top-to-bottom review of his Iran policy and a diplomatic surge to
advance U.S. interests with regard to Iran. He should announce that his
Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are prepared to meet
anytime, anywhere with their Iranian counterparts to conduct vigorous
diplomacy to advance U.S. interests and address the challenges of Iran.” Senator Harry Reid (Nevada) December 4, 2007“The
key judgments show that the intelligence community has learned its
lessons from the Iraq debacle. It has issued judgments that break
sharply with its own previous assessments, and they reflect a real
difference from the views espoused by top administration officials.” Senator Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) December 3, 2007
US spies concoct a potent Iran brew - AsiaTimes - 4. Dec 2007 - By Kaveh L Afrasiabi - Two
years after the last National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)on Iran that
claimed "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to
develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and
international pressure", the 2007 NIE by the US's 16 spy agencies
claims otherwise. That is, that Iran "halted" its secret weapons
program in the autumn of 2003. Crediting this to pressure by the
international community, the new report is clearly geared to sustain
the crumbling United Nations coalition on Iran.As
expected, Washington, which released the report with much fan-fare, has
been quick to frame it with the appropriate nuance, by letting National
Security Advisor Stephen Hadley do the talking, "It confirms
that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear
weapons," Hadley said. "It tells us that we have made progress in
trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also
tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a
very serious problem."In other words, let's not have a let-up with the sanctions that the new report proves are effectively working.The
new NIE reports with "high confidence" that the military-run program
was shut in 2003, and it concludes with "moderate confidence" that the
program had not restarted as of mid-2007.The
timing of the report's release is curious, coinciding both with Iranian
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's crucial meeting with the heads of states
of the Gulf Cooperation Council, where Ahmadinejad has made substantial
progress in confidence-building by advancing the idea of security and
economic cooperation in the region, and with critical discussions with
the so-called "Five plus One" countries regarding the next United
Nations steps against Iran. The Five plus One includes the five
permanent members of the UN security Council - United States, the
United Kingdom, France, Russia and China - plus Germany.Irrespective
of Hadley's comments, the new NIE actually undermines much of the
rationale behind the US-led push for a third round of US sanctions on
Iran, by flatly contradicting what until now has been held as an
article of faith by US politicians and much of the media. That is, the
notion that Iran has been pursuing an open weapons program via its
uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities.Casting
heavy doubt on that flawed theory or "truth paradigm" [1], the new NIE
simultaneously recycles the previous reports's air of certainty and
lack of minutest doubt and presents its new findings, which are in
stark contrast, if not flagrant contradiction, to the previous
report's. Such intelligence flip-flops on Iran simply reduce the
credibility of any information on that country from Washington and
raise international doubts about its real intentions.Thus,
given the credibility gaps in US information on Iran, the real question
is whether or not the new report actually helps or harms the US's bid
to escalate sanctions on Iran? This is an important question since
reports indicate strong reservations on the part of China and Russia to
go along with further sanctions imposed either unilaterally or
multilaterally.To
open a caveat, former US national security advisor, Zbingnew
Brzezinski, has written an article in the US media claiming that China,
depicted as a "geopolitically status-quo power", is inclined to come on
board more sanctions and even the "revisionist" Russians can be
persuaded with the right "patient diplomacy".Brzezinski
does not mention the China-Russia alliance within the anti-North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
which has accorded Iran observer status, conveniently relying on a
caricature of China's evolving global power projections and intentions.Cultivating
partners against Iran by benign analyses or dubious intelligence
reports will not cut it and the US is today in dire need of a serious
rethinking of its long-term policies and intentions in the Middle East,
nowadays featuring a "rising Iran".In
the absence of such a rethinking, the unrealistic expectation of "zero
centrifuges" will persist. Instead, the US could contemplate the
utility of an alternative, coercion-free Iran diplomacy centered on
shared and parallel interests with the US, that is, both nations'
vested interest in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries'
oil flowing from the Persian Gulf to the international market, as well
as on an internationally monitored Iranian nuclear program. In other
words, it is time for "realism, not idealism" in the US's policy
regarding Iran's nuclear program. [2]To
open another caveat, this author's past exposure to Iran's nuclear
decision-makers, particularly in 2004 and 2005, leaves no doubt the new
US report's claim that Iran "halted" certain nuclear activities due to
external pressure should be taken with a grain of salt. This is in view
of the fact that all exhaustive International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)inspections have produced no such conclusions and, on the
contrary, have actually reinforced the Iranian claim that Iran has
never diverted to military development.The
various programs that Iran halted in 2004-2005, as a result of intense
negotiations with the European troika of Germany, France and Britain,
were "voluntary, non-legally binding" confidence-building measures, and
not any illicit, military activities, such as those alluded to in the
US's new intelligence report. If the latter were true, then the world
community needs to know what specific activities were involved and why
the US has until now failed to share them, for example, with the IAEA.
After all, IAEA chief Mohamad ElBaradei has been quite forthcoming in
his latest press interviews regarding the lack of any knowledge of
Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.What
is troubling about the new NIE is that top US intelligence officials
have been going on record, for instance in their congressional
testimony, promising no repetition of past errors put on full display
with respect to Iraq, no "cherry picking" intelligence on Iran, and
even threatening to resign if selective intelligence were to be misused
for military adventures against Iran.With
the US intelligence community on the defensive since the
post-Iraq-invasion revelations still plaguing the George W Bush
administration, the latter may have managed a mini-coup with the
intelligence community by procuring a new report that confirms an
Iranian nuclear weapons program, albeit one that it claims has been
"halted".If
complemented by a follow-up report that Iran is now poised to change
course and resurrect its halted activities, then theoretically
speaking, that gives ample justification for Washington's planned
"pre-emptive strikes" on Iran, not to mention added sanctions. Yet,
even short of such a follow-up, the present state of mind on Iran
fueled by the new intelligence report is sufficiently paranoid to
warrant tough new actions against Tehran.But,
does this new report really represent an improvement in the US's
intelligence on Iran? Or is it the same attitude that continuously
falls shy of acknowledging Iran's legitimate nuclear rights, and needs
for peaceful purposes, and the viability of existing mechanisms, for
verification, by the IAEA, not to mention the proposed additional
"objective guarantees" that Iran has put on the table?This
aside, the US has for now taken a qualitative step away from the
military option by releasing this new report that states unequivocally
an Iranian freeze on its proliferation impulse, while simultaneously
giving that military option a new lease of life by the related
allegation of past proliferation activities.On
the whole however, this puts the US behavior with regard to Iran in a
thick cloud of uncertainty, let alone credibility gap, with the
pendulum capable of swinging in wildly different directions almost at
will. The bottom line, thanks to its vast cadre of intelligence
"alchemists" is that the US and its even more gullible politicians, has
now pre-positioned itself for yet another disastrous gambit in the
volatile Middle East.The
temporary freeze on the military option by the new intelligence report
has nested within it its exact opposite, and may be calculated as part
and parcel of a roundabout way of dealing with Iran's "nuclear menace".
This is, indeed, a menacing development.
Polenz für Verhandlungen mit Iran http://www.tagesspiegel.de/ - 5.12.2007 Der CDU-Außenpolitiker Ruprecht Polenz sieht eine Chance für Gespräche:
Nach den neuen US-Geheimdienstberichten über das iranische Atomprogramm
solle nun vorbehaltlos mit Teheran verhandelt werden.
Ruprecht Polenz (CDU), seit 2005 Vorsitzender des Auswärtigen Ausschusses des Deutschen Bundestages. - Foto: Thilo Rückeis
BERLIN -
"Die Forderung nach Aussetzung der Urananreicherung sollte
zwar bestehen bleiben, aber nicht mehr als Vorbedingung gesehen werden,
um sich mit Iran an einen Tisch zu setzen. Es gibt jetzt die Chance für
Gespräche", sagte der Vorsitzende des Auswärtigen Ausschusses des
Bundestages.
Auch sollten die vom UN- Sicherheitsrat beschlossenen Sanktionen
bekräftigt werden. "Ich rate aber nicht zu einer Verschärfung der
Sanktionen." Polenz regte an, dass der Sicherheitsrat in einer neuen
Resolution das Nuklear-Dossier an die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde
(IAEA) zurückgibt. Dann sollen die sogenannten EU-3 (Deutschland,
Frankreich, Großbritannien) in Abstimmung mit den USA, Russland und
China mit Teheran verhandeln. Iran müsse aber dann seine für diesen
Fall gemachte Zusage halten und das Zusatzprotokoll zum
Nicht-Verbreitungsvertrag ratifizieren. Dieses Protokoll ermöglicht
unangemeldete Inspektionen und eine genauere Kontrolle von Atomanlagen.
"Es kann jetzt endlich ein Prozess in Gang kommen, bei dem sich auch
die Amerikaner direkt mit den Iranern an einen Tisch setzen."
Neue Sanktionen hält Polenz derzeit für wenig hilfreich und zudem weder
im Sicherheitsrat noch bei allen 27 EU-Mitgliedsländern für
durchsetzbar. Er erinnerte daran, dass das von den EU-3 vorgelegte
Angebot für eine verstärkte Kooperation mit Iran bei der
Atomtechnologie und in Wirtschaftsfragen weiter Bestand habe. Die
Wirtschaftskooperation sollte nach seiner Ansicht mit einem
konstruktiven Verhalten Teherans im Nahost-Friedensprozess verbunden
werden. Schließlich sei Iran das einzige Land der Region, das im
israelisch-palästinensischen Konflikt eine Zwei-Staaten-Lösung
dezidiert ablehne, sagte Polenz. Teheran verfüge aber über erheblichen
Einfluss auf die radikalislamischen Gruppen Hamas und Hisbollah.
US Democrats: Time for new Iran policy - PressTV - 05 Dec 2007 - Senior
US Democrats urge President George W. Bush to consider 'a top-to-bottom
review of his Iran policy' after the US intelligence report.
Now that the intelligence community has confirmed there is no
evidence Tehran is pursuing nuclear arms 'President Bush's heated
rhetoric on Iran, including comments about a potential World War Three,
is even more outrageous,”said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "He should announce that his Secretary of State and Secretary of
Defense are prepared to meet anytime, anywhere with their Iranian
counterparts to conduct vigorous diplomacy to advance US interests," he
added.
Meanwhile, US Democratic presidential candidates have criticized
President Bush's claim that 'nothing has changed' despite the new
report.
"This president will not let facts get in the way of his
ideology,'' said Senator Barack Obama. ”They should have stopped the
saber rattling, should never have started it,'' he added.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton also said Bush "should seize this
opportunity'' while her rival Senator Joe Biden termed Bush as 'not
trustworthy'.
Soltaniyeh: West should compensate and win Iran's trust - IRNA - 5 December 2007 Iran's
Permanent Envoy to IAEA Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh said on Tuesday that
following recent comments made by IAEA director general on recent
report released by the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the
West should compensate and win Iran's trust.
Speaking to IRNA, he said the issue proves Iran's position
of peaceful nature of its nuclear activities, therefore, the western
countries and Europe in particular should compensate the losses Iran
suffered in terms of finance and prestige. It is Europe which
should compensate and win Iran's trust, he underlined. To show
their goodwill and political determination, European
countries should prevent the intervention of United Nations Security
Council from any involvement which would further weaken
IAEA. Under such circumstances, both Iran and IAEA could resolve
the
the remaining issues within IAEA rules and responsibilities, he
said. The US, particularly in the past four years, has reported
incorrect information on Iran's peaceful nuclear activities which only
wasted IAEA's time, he said. Iran is to continue cooperation with
IAEA to help resolve remaining issue on its dossier, he pointed
out. A team of experts from IAEA is to visit Iran on December 10
to follow up the issue, he concluded.
Iran: President Bush's Press Conference - broadcast
date:2007-12-04 - Pres. Bush holds a press conference to discuss
the National Intelligence Report on Iranian nuclear capabilities. In
this press conference President Bush comments to reporter's questions
about the newly released National Intelligence Estimate. Among other,
he maintains the importance of putting pressure on the Iranian
government and isolating it. He calls Iran "dangerous" and views the
NIE as confirmation of his policies, and not in contradiction to it. He
maintains that the "carrot and stick" approach with the government is
effective and should be with the help of U.S.'s allies. source: cspan via http://www.politube.org/show/271 (English, 14 minutes, created by kuros)
U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003 - By MARK MAZZETTI - Dec.4, 2007 WASHINGTON,
Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released
Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003
and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years
ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear
bomb. The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape
the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting
Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy. The
assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the
consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is
likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but
that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to
develop nuclear weapons.” Iran is continuing to produce enriched
uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is intended for
civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program
could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear
weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially
unchanged from previous estimates. But the new report essentially
disavows a judgment that the intelligence agencies issued in 2005,
which concluded that Iran had an active secret arms program intended to
transform the raw material into a nuclear weapon. The new estimate
declares instead with “high confidence” that the military-run program
was shut in 2003, and it concludes with “moderate confidence” that the
program remains frozen. The report judges that the halt was imposed by
Iran “primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and
pressure.” It was not clear what prompted the reversal.
Administration officials said the new estimate reflected conclusions
that the intelligence agencies had agreed on only in the past several
weeks. The report’s agnosticism about Iran’s nuclear intentions
represents a very different tone than had been struck by President
Bush, and by Vice President Dick Cheney, who warned in a speech in
October that if Iran “stays on its present course, the international
community is prepared to impose serious consequences.” The estimate
does not say when intelligence agencies learned that the arms program
had been halted, but officials said new information obtained from
covert sources over the summer had led to a reassessment of the state
of Iran’s nuclear program and a decision to delay preparation of the
estimate, which had been scheduled to be delivered to Congress in the
spring. The new report came out just over five years after a 2002
intelligence estimate on Iraq concluded that it possessed chemical and
biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear
program. That estimate was instrumental in winning the Congressional
authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, but it proved to be
deeply flawed, and most of its conclusions turned out to be wrong. Intelligence
officials said the specter of the 2002 estimate on Iraq hung over their
deliberations on Iran even more than it had in 2005, when the lessons
from the intelligence failure on Iraq were just beginning to prompt spy
agencies to adapt a more rigorous approach to their findings. The
2007 report on Iran had been requested by members of Congress,
underscoring that any conclusions could affect American policy toward
Iran at a delicate time. The new estimate brought American assessments
more in line with the judgments of international arms inspectors. Last
month, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, reported that Iran was operating 3,000 uranium-enriching
centrifuges capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons,
but he said inspectors had been unable to determine whether the Iranian
program sought only to generate electricity or to also to build weapons. Senator
Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the Senate majority leader,
portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this
administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran” and
called for enhanced diplomatic efforts toward Tehran. Democratic
presidential candidates mostly echoed Senator Reid, but also emphasized
that Iran’s long-term ambitions were still a great concern to the
United States. In interviews on Monday, some administration
officials expressed skepticism about the conclusions reached in the new
report, saying they doubted that American intelligence agencies had a
firm grasp of the Iranian government’s intentions. The
administration officials also said the intelligence findings would not
lessen the White House’s concern about the prospect of a nuclear-armed
Iran. The fact that Iran continues to refine its abilities to enrich
uranium, they said, means that any decision in the future to restart a
nuclear weapons program could lead Iran to a bomb in relatively short
order. While the new report does not contrast sharply with earlier
assessments about Iran’s capabilities, it does make new judgments about
the intentions of its government. Rather than portraying Iran as a
rogue, irrational country determined to join the club of nations that
possess a nuclear bomb, the estimate says Iran’s “decisions are guided
by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective
of the political, economic and military costs.” The administration
called new attention to the threat posed by Iran this year when Mr.
Bush suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to
“World War III.” Mr. Cheney also said that month that as Iran continued
to enrich uranium, “the end of that process will be the development of
nuclear weapons.” Yet even as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were making
those statements, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were well
under way toward revising the earlier assessment about Iran’s nuclear
arms program. Administration officials said the White House had known
at the time that the conclusions about Iran were under review but had
not been informed until more recently that intelligence agencies had
reversed their 2005 conclusion. In September, officials said, Gen.
Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, and his deputy, Stephen R.
Kappes, met with Iran analysts to take a hard look at past conclusions
about Iran’s nuclear program in light of new information obtained since
2005. “We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and
sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior
intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The
estimate concludes that if Iran were to restart its arms program, it
would still be at least two years before it would have enough highly
enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still
“very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then. Instead,
the report released on Monday concludes that it is more likely that
Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next
decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of
Intelligence and Research judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this
goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic
problems.” The estimate concludes that it would be difficult to
persuade Iran’s leaders to abandon all efforts to get nuclear weapons,
given the importance of getting the bomb to Iran’s strategic goals in
the Middle East. Intelligence officials presented the outlines of
the intelligence estimate two weeks ago to several cabinet members,
along with Mr. Cheney. During the meeting, officials said, policy
makers challenged and debated the conclusions. The final draft of the
estimate was presented to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney last Wednesday. Officials
said they now planned to give extensive briefings to American allies
like Israel, Britain and France. Israel intelligence officials for
years have put forward more urgent warnings about Iran’s nuclear
abilities than their American counterparts, positing that Iran could
get a nuclear bomb this decade. Intelligence officials had said just
weeks ago they were ending the practice of declassifying parts of
intelligence estimates, citing concerns that analysts might alter their
judgments if they knew the reports would be widely publicized. But
in a statement on Monday, Donald M. Kerr, the principal deputy director
of national intelligence, said that since the new estimate was at odds
with the 2005 assessment — and thus at odds with public statements by
top officials about Iran — “we felt it was important to release this
information to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.”
BRISANTES DOSSIER - US-Geheimdienste relativieren Gefahr durch Iran - SPIEGEL ONLINE - 03. Dezember 2007 -Die
US-Geheimdienste haben ein neues Dossier zum Iran-Konflikt
veröffentlicht: Das Atomprogramm wurde demnach schon 2003 gestoppt, die
Bedrohung ist geringer als gedacht. Für die Regierung Bush ein heikler
Bericht - sie wies prompt zurück, die Gefahr aufgebauscht zu
haben. Das neue Dossier ist das Werk aller 16 US-Geheimdienste.
Gemeinsam kommen sie zu einem eindeutigen Ergebnis: Die iranische
Regierung von Präsident Mahmud Ahmadinedschad sei bei der Entwicklung
eines Atomarsenals "weniger entschlossen" als bisher angenommen. Das
Land werde frühestens Ende 2009 in der Lage sein, hochangereichertes
Uran für den Bau von Atomwaffen herzustellen - doch auch dieses
Szenario sei "sehr unwahrscheinlich", heißt es in dem sogenannten
National Intelligence Estimate...MEHR HIER>>
"Key
Differences Between the Key Judgments of This
[2007 US National Intelligence]
Estimate on Iran's Nuclear Program and the
May 2005 Assessment "2005 Assess with high
confidence that Iran currently is determined to
develop nuclear weapons ..."2007 Judge with high
confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its
nuclear weapons program ..." "If
we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer,
it will be too late. Iran will have nuclear
weapons." - John Bolton,
former US ambassador the UN, in a speech in
April
2004.
Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is
determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international
obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran
is immovable.
Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,
Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence
that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have
moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.) Assess with moderate
confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of
mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt was directed
primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure
resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.
Assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.
We have moderate confidence in projecting when Iran is
likely to make a nuclear weapon; we assess that it is unlikely before
early-to-mid next decade.
We judge with moderate confidence
that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of
producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late
2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence
Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for
a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges that
Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of
foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)
Iran could produce enough fissile material for a weapon by
the end of this decade if it were to make more rapid and successful
progress than we have seen to date.
We judge with moderate
confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically
capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon
is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
Secret talks with Iran on nuclear reactors by Ben Fenton (source: Financial Times) via CASMII - December 30, 2007 -
In negotiations with
the head of the Iranian atomic energy programme, senior UK civil
servants predicted that by the end of the 20th century Iran would have
obtained the technology - from Britain itself - to build nuclear
weapons. ››read more
Russia delivers more nuclear fuel to Iran: official (source: AFP) via CASMII - December 29, 2007
TEHRAN
(AFP) — Russia has delivered a second consignment of nuclear fuel to
Iran's Bushehr power plant, the official news agency IRNA quoted the
deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation as saying on
Friday. ››read more
Nuclear hoax by John Cherian (source: Frontline ) via CASMII - December 28, 2007 - Bush, however,
continues to insist that Iran still remains a “dangerous country”,
asserting that the NIE conclusions support his administration’s
position about Iran pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons policy. He
did concede that the NIE report was a “great discovery” and that Iran
had a sovereign right to a civilian nuclear programme. But he hastened
to add that his administration continued to be suspicious about Iran’s
enrichment programme “because of their covert efforts at weapons
development”.››read more
Iran Hawks Find New Supporters Against the NIE by Rostam Pourzal (source: Foreign Policy In Focus) via CASMII - December 28, 2007 - Rostam Pourzal Many
of us remember the Iraqi exile groups whose tall tales the
Administration used to justify the invasion of their country in 2003.
Fewer people are aware that similar groups from other Middle Eastern
countries frequent the halls of Congress and editorial board rooms
carrying their frightening ghost-written books with guidance from
pro-war think tanks. The organized challenge against the 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) summary on Iran this month included such a
group, which for years cried wolf about Iran. ››read more
No proof Iranian gov't behind IEDs: Afghan diplomat (source: CTV.ca) via CASMII - December 28, 2007 - Omar SamadAfghanistan's
Ambassador to Canada appears to be cautious about blaming Iran for
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) being used in attacks against
Afghan and NATO soldiers in his country. Omar Samad, the top Afghan
diplomat in Canada, told CTV Newsnet on Wednesday that there is no
evidence about where the IEDs actually originated and who brought them
to Afghanistan. ››read more
Nur wenige iranische Juden wollen nach Israel - von
Amir Loghmany (der Standard) via CASMII - Dec 28, 2007 - Großes
Medieninteresse für 40 Emigranten In einem gemeinsamen Kommuniqué haben
der Vorsitzende der
iranischen Judenorganisation, Mere Sedgh, und der Vertreter der
iranischen Juden im iranischen Parlament, Moris Motamed, die
Berichterstattung über die Auswanderung 40 iranischer Juden nach Israel
als gezielte Propaganda gegen den Iran bezeichnet. Die Auswanderung
selbst wurde dabei weder bestätigt noch dementiert.
Die 40 iranischen Juden sind am Dienstag in Israel eingetroffen und
wurden dort mit großem Bahnhof und Medieninteresse empfangen. Sie sind
die größte Gruppe von Juden seit der Islamischen Revolution von 1979,
die den Iran verlassen. Mere Sedgh betonte in einem Interview, dass die
Juden im Iran unbehelligt leben und als Minderheitenrecht einen
Abgeordneten im iranischen Parlament haben. Sie fühlten sich als ein
Teil der iranischen Nation, so Mere Sedgh.
Bis zu 28.000 Juden leben im Iran (in Teheran allein gibt es 20
Synagogen), das ist die größte jüdische Gemeinde im Mittleren Osten.
Moris Motamed bezeichnete die finanziellen Anreize für jüdische
iranische Einwanderer in Israel als eine „Beleidigung der iranischen
Juden“. Die Integrität der iranischen Juden könne man nicht kaufen.
Tatsächlich bekommt jeder iranische Jude in Israel bei seiner
Einwanderung über die normale Unterstützung hinaus 10.000 US-Dollar.
Der überwältigende Teil der iranischen Juden, die meist dem Mittelstand
angehören, zieht es trotz aller Nachteile vor, im Iran zu bleiben. Die
israelische Zeitung Haaretz
zitiert einen Beamten der Einwanderungsbehörde mit den Worten: „Wir
haben ihnen so viel geboten, aber nur so wenige kommen.“ (Amir Loghmany
aus Teheran/DER STANDARD, Printausgabe, 29./30.12.2007)
Iranian Jews say republic safe for them by Ali AKbar Dareini (source: Associated Press) via CASMII - December 27, 2007 A top Jewish
community leader in Iran on Wednesday described the recent immigration
of 40 Iranian Jews to Israel as a "misinformation campaign" and
insisted that Jews living in the Islamic Republic were not endangered
by the hard-line policies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ››read more
Paul: 'We're getting ready to bomb Iran' by David Edwards & Jason Rhyne (source: The Raw Story) via CASMII - December 27, 2007 - Rep. Ron PaulDespite
a recent National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran has halted
its nuclear weapons program, libertarian-leaning GOP presidential
contender Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says there is still "a great
possibility" of US military action against the country. ››read more
British MPs call on government to oppose military attack on Iran (source: CASMII) - December 20, 2007
- On
Tuesday 18th December, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP for Islington North,
London, submitted an early day motion (EDM) to the House of Commons,
calling on the British government to oppose publicly any military
intervention against Iran. "EDMs are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of
Commons. However, very few EDMs are actually debated. Instead, they are
used for reasons such as publicising the views of individual MPs,
drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating
the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of
view." See http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/Default.aspxCorbyn's motion on Iran and the Middle East states: "That this House notes the findings of the International Atomic
Energy Agency-Iran work plan of 27th August and the IAEA's report of
15th November clarifying and clearing a number of major outstanding
issues in relation to Iran's past nuclear activities; notes the
judgment of the recent US National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does
not have an active nuclear weapons programme at present; is strongly
concerned about the continued threats of a military attack against Iran
which could start another catastrophic war in the Middle East; urges
immediate, direct and unconditional negotiations between the US and
Iran on all points of dispute; and calls on the Government to oppose
publicly any military intervention by the US and/or Israel in Iran."
Manufacturing Threats: Sudan, Iran, and the War for Civilization (source: media lens) via CASMII - December 18, 2007 - News that British
schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons had been jailed in Sudan after allowing
her pupils to call a teddy bear Mohammed fed straight into the UK
media’s hate factory and its “war for civilisation”. [...] This did nothing to dim the enthusiasm of journalists eager to
portray Iran as a threat to world peace. George Monbiot wrote in the
Guardian last month: "I believe that Iran is trying to acquire the
bomb." ››read more
Sinopec to triple oil import from Iran - PressTV - Fri, 14 Dec 2007 - China's
refiner Sinopec Corp. will triple its import of crude from Iran next
year, boosting its share of crude from OPEC's second largest producer.
Its state-run parent company, Sinopec Group, currently importing
60,000 barrels per day (bpd) is determined to purchase 160,000 bpd as
of next year, said Reuters quoting two informed sources.
Based on the deals signed between Iran and China, Beijing will
import around six percent of its total oil demand, namely 400,000 bpd,
from Iran in 2008.
Another oil contract had been clinched earlier between the National
Iranian Oil Company and China's state-owned Zhuhai Zhenrong
Corporation. It took almost three years to finalize the talks on the
crude deal. China is the world's second largest oil consumer. MPR/HAR
China, Iran Sign $2 Billion Oil Production Agreement by Wang Ying & Dinakar Sethuraman (source: Bloomberg) via CASMII - December 10, 2007 -
China
Petrochemical Corp. signed a $2 billion agreement to develop Iran's
Yadavaran oil field, advancing prospects for a contract on the sale of
liquefied natural gas to the world's fastest-growing major economy. ››read more
Iran stops selling oil in U.S. dollars -report - Sat Dec 8, 2007 - TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has completely stopped selling any of its
oil for U.S. dollars, an Iranian news agency reported on Saturday,
citing the oil minister of the world's fourth-largest crude producer. The ISNA news agency did not give a direct quote from Oil Minister
Gholamhossein Nozari. A senior oil official last month said "nearly
all" of Iran's crude oil sales were now being paid for in non-U.S.
currencies. For nearly two years, OPEC's second biggest producer has been
reducing its exposure to the dollar, saying the weak U.S. currency is
eroding its purchasing power. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the
West, has called the U.S. currency a "worthless piece of paper." Foes since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, Tehran and Washington are
also at odds over Tehran's disputed nuclear programme as well as over
policy in Iraq. "In line with the policy of selling crude oil in currencies other
than the U.S. dollar, currently the sale of our country's oil in U.S.
dollars has been completely eliminated," ISNA reported after talking
with Nozari. Nozari told ISNA: "In regards to the decrease in the dollar's value
and the loss exporters of crude oil have endured from this trend, the
dollar is no longer a reliable currency." "This is why, at the meeting of the heads of states, Iran proposed
to OPEC members that a currency (for oil exports) would be determined
that would be reliable and would not cause any loss to exporter
countries," he said. At a November summit of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries heads of state, Iran suggested oil should be sold in a basket
of currencies rather than dollars, but failed to win over other members
except Venezuela. Ahmadinejad and his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez, are vocal critics of U.S. influence in the world. Hojjatollah Ghanimifard, international affairs director of the state
owned National Iranian Oil Company, last month told Reuters that most
of Iran's oil export earnings were in euros, with some in yen. (Reporting by Zahra Hosseinian, writing by Fredrik Dahl, editing by Anthony Barker)
Iran's Nuclear Program Never Existed by William O. Beeman (source: New America Media) via CASMII - December 5, 2007 - Iran
has never had a proven nuclear weapons program. Ever. This inconvenient
fact stands as an indictment of the Bush administration’s stance on
Iran. ››read more
"....Q: Several days ago, US Vice President Dick Cheney, in a
speech to a hawkish pro-Israel think-tank, the Washington Institute for
Near Policy, warned Tehran of 'serious consequences' if it did not
freeze its nuclear program. In addition to the harsher rhetoric, Congressional analysts noticed
the insertion of an US $88 million request in the $200 billion 2007
supplemental defense bill to modify B-2 Stealth bombers so that they
can drop a 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator', a conventional
'bunker-busting' bomb designed to destroy targets that are buried deep
underground, in response to 'an urgent operational need from theater
commanders'. According to some defense analysts, the only logical
target for such a weapon in the current geostrategic climate, would be
Iran's nuclear sites. What are your comments on Vice President Cheney's
threat and possible use of 'bunker-busting' bombs?
A: The material capabilities that our enemies - the Israelis
and the Americans - have were used in Lebanon's 33-day war. We all saw
that the Shia people of southern Lebanon opted for and used the Basij
philosophy. There are religious and cultural commonalities between our
two communities. They stood against these bunker-busting bombs and
other military capabilities. All the people around the world came to
see that a revolutionary army with spiritual beliefs and the Basij
philosophy can stand against the best army in the world. They resisted
for thirty days and the invasion failed. We can use the same philosophy
and strategies used by Hezbollah to nullify their military superiority.
Q: The top advisor to the Supreme Leader on military affairs
and the former Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Commander, Major General
Yahya Rahim Safavi has said the United States is 'highly unlikely' to
launch a military strike against Iran. However, he said the Iranian
armed forces don't underestimate a possible attack by the US and are
prepared to counter any possible threat against the country. How close
do you see the prospect of a US war against Iran?
A: I think General Safavi was correct. The possibility of a
military attack on our country, especially on land, is a very remote
possibility. The Americans know they can not land here because they
will not go back. But there is the possibility of a limited air
campaign which targets a number of special sites. If our enemies are
wise at all, they will not even do that. As the US President is
approaching his eight-year limit and the election campaign really kicks
off, they will not be in a position to do so. They might think that a
limited air campaign against Iran can be done and later announce it has
been carried out. We will end the game ourselves. Once they start, they
can not say it's ended.
" READ THE WHOLE exclusive interview with the head of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Mohammad Ali Jafari. HERE
Wie der britische Herald am Montag unter Berufung auf "militärische
Quellen" berichtete,
wird die US-Basis auf der Insel Diego Garcia im Indischen Ozean derzeit
ausgebaut, um Vorbereitungen für einen Angriff auf den Iran zu treffen...MEHR HIER>>
Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans - 29 October 2007-
By IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent The
US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British
island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation
for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, according to military
sources. The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure
coincides
with
an "urgent operational need" request for £44m to fit racks to the
long-range aircraft. That would allow them to carry experimental
15-ton Massive
Ordnance
Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as
much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete. One MOP
- known as Big Blu - has already been tested
successfully at
the US Air Force proving ground at White Sands in New Mexico. Tenders
have now gone out for a production model to be ready for use in the
next nine months. The "static tunnel lethality test" on March 14
completely
destroyed
a mock-up of the kind of underground facility used to house Iran's
nuclear centrifuge arrays at Natanz, about 150 miles from the capital,
Tehran. Although intelligence estimates vary as to when
Iran will achieve the know-how for a bomb, the French government
recently received a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency
stating that Iran will be ready to run almost 3000 centrifuges in 18
cascades by the end of this month. That is in defiance of a UN ban on
uranium enrichment and would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon
within a year.
Diego Garcia is ideally placed for strategic missions in the Middle East
Diego
Garcia, part of Britain's Indian Ocean Territory, has several current
missions. US Air Force bombers and Awacs surveillance planes operate
from its 12,000ft runway and the USAF Space Command has built a
satellite tracking station and communications facility.The Ministry of Defence says the US government would need Britain's
permission to use the island for offensive action. It has already been
used for strategic strike
missions during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars against Iraq.
The UK "sovereign territory" has a garrison of 50 British and 3200 US military personnel.
The atoll, the largest in the Chagos Archipelago chain, lies about
1000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka. It is
ideally placed for strategic missions in the Middle East.
The US Department of Defence request for special bomb racks was hidden in
a £95bn request to the US Congress last week for extra emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The new Big Blu bomb is 20ft long, weighs 30,000lb and carries
6000lb of high explosives. It is designed to go deeper than even
existing nuclear bunker-busting weapons.
The bomb is designed to be dropped from as great a height as
possible to achieve maximum velocity and penetrating power, guided on
to target by satellite and accurate to within a few feet.
Each B2 bomber would be able to carry only one weapon because of its
weight. The B2s, normally based at Barksdale, Missouri, flew round-trip
strikes against Baghdad in 2003, but would ideally be positioned closer
to its targets for missions against Iran.
The Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for a range of attacks
on Iran. The likeliest is a five-day bombardment, aiming to disable
nuclear facilities and all major airbases and radar facilities; the
most devastating would involve air and cruise missile attacks on 1000
targets, including headquarters and barracks of the Iranian Republican
Guard Corps, over more than a month.
The US branded the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation
last week in the latest round of diplomatic sanctions against Tehran.
NEWS FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Prof. Joseph Taylor's speech at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran -16
OCTOBER 2007 - "... is one of the most important days in the
history of the university. For the first time a Physics Nobel prize
winner was speaking for the universities students and professors. On
Tuesday morning Joseph Taylor and Sharif Physics department's
professors were negotiating transfers of students and professors
between Sharif and Princeton. There was also a meeting with the
university professors and members of the academy of science and
engineering, in which each of the members will be speaking about their
fields of research... READ MORE>>
Iran 'committed to IAEA agreements' - Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:33:44 - PRESS TV Iranian
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says Tehran remains committed to
the comprehensive Safeguard Agreement with the IAEA. In
a letter to the Foreign Ministers of the world countries, Mottaki said
Iran has cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
beyond the country's obligations....MORE>>
Mit Enttäuschung und Ärger haben die Regierungen des Westens
am Freitag auf den jüngsten Bericht der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde
(IAEA) über das iranische Atomprogramm reagiert. Israelische Politiker forderten
sogar den Rücktritt von IAEA-Generaldirektor Mohamed ElBaradei. Im Iran hingegen
wird der Bericht als neuerliche Bestätigung für den ausschließlich friedlichen
Charakter des Atomprogramms gewertet. Das von der IAEA offiziell noch
nicht veröffentlichte, aber bereits im Internet zugängliche Dokument hat neun
Seiten Umfang und beschäftigt sich mit zwei Themen: Im Hauptteil werden
detailliert die Ergebnisse der seit August geführten Untersuchung über
»ausstehende Fragen« der Entwicklungsgeschichte des iranischen Atomprogramms
dargestellt. Im Anschluß daran wird über den aktuellen Stand der Arbeiten an der
Urananreicherung und am Bau eines Schwerwasserreaktors in Arrak berichtet. Angaben bestätigt Im historischen Teil des Papiers wird zu wesentlichen,
bisher nicht endgültig geklärten Fragen jetzt eindeutig festgestellt, daß die
von iranischer Seite gemachten Angaben als bestätigt und bewiesen anzusehen
seien. Einige noch offene Punkte sollen planmäßig »in wenigen Wochen« und »in
nächster Zeit« abgeschlossen werden. ElBaradei hat dafür das Jahresende als
Termin gesetzt. Daß immer noch nicht alle Fragen vollständig geklärt sind, ist
–wie es im Bericht wörtlich heißt – begründet durch die »lange Geschichte und
Komplexität des Programms«. Die IAEA hat vom Iran nicht nur eine vollständige
Chronologie aller Ereignisse gefordert und erhalten, sondern hat sich auch die
Teilnehmerlisten von bis zu 20 Jahren zurückliegenden Beratungen geben lassen,
um anschließend Einzelgespräche mit den beteiligten Personen zu führen.
Schwierige Fragen, wie beispielsweise die Gründe für die Schließung einer
Uranmine im Jahr 1993, wurden genau erforscht. Umso beachtlicher sind die
Ergebnisse, die die Iraner in allen bisher abgeschlossenen Punkten ohne
Einschränkung rehabilitieren. Im Bericht wird überdies festgestellt, daß die
iranische Seite der IAEA in zufriedenstellender Weise Zugang zu allen
beteiligten Personen ermöglicht und alle Fragen in angemessener Zeit beantwortet
hat. Unter IAEA-Kontrolle Die Klärung der Geschichte des iranischen
Atomprogramms ist von allergrößter Bedeutung, weil die gegen Iran verhängten
Sondermaßnahmen, wie etwa die Forderung nach Einstellung aller Arbeiten an der
Urananreicherung, ausschließlich mit offenen Fragen aus der Vergangenheit
begründet worden sind. Der Atomwaffensperrvertrag (NPT) bietet keine Handhabe,
dem Iran die Urananreicherung oder auch den Bau eines Schwerwasserreaktors zu
verbieten. Daher ist es aus rechtlicher Sicht auch unerheblich, daß in
ElBaradeis jüngstem Bericht erneut festgestellt wird, was vom Iran gar nicht
bestritten wird und nach dem NPT nicht zu beanstanden ist: Die Arbeiten an der
Urananreicherung gehen weiter. Iran hat zur Zeit 3000 Gaszentrifugen in Betrieb,
wenn auch nicht mit voller Kapazität. Der Prozeß steht unter vollständiger,
strikter Kontrolle der IAEA, ebenso wie das gesamte bisher produzierte
angereicherte Uran. Der höchste von der IAEA gemessene Anreicherungsgrad ist
vier Prozent. Für die Herstellung von waffenfähigem Uran wären 80 bis 90 Prozent
erforderlich. * IAEA-Bericht: graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071115IAEA-report.pdf
Iran more transparent but expands nuclear campaign
Iran has made important strides towards clarifying past nuclear
activities but key questions remain unresolved and it has significantly
expanded uranium enrichment, a U.N. watchdog report said on Thursday. Reuters/
AP/
Bloomberg/
AFP/
DPA
NYT: Report Raises New Doubts on Iran Nuclear Program
The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report on Thursday
that Iran had made new but incomplete disclosures about its past
nuclear activities, missing a critical deadline under an agreement with
the agency and virtually assuring a new push by the United States to
impose stricter international sanctions. NYT/
FT/
Chicago Tribune/
BBC
Britain cautious over Iran nuclear report
Britain said on Thursday it would study a key UN nuclear watchdog
report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but repeated its threat to impose
tougher sanctions if there was no further progress. AFP
U.S. to Seek New Sanctions Against Iran
The Bush administration plans to push for new sanctions against Iran
after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported yesterday that Tehran
is providing "diminishing" information about its controversial nuclear
program, U.S. officials said. WP
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says new UN sanctions would be wrong
Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Thursday that a new U.N. nuclear
watchdog report proves accusations that Iran is pursuing nuclear
weapons are baseless and that new sanctions against the country would
be wrong. AP/
Reuters
Glimmer of hope ahead of nuclear deal talks
The government meets its communist allies on Friday to try and soften
their opposition to a landmark nuclear deal with the United States amid
conflicting signals from left leaders. Reuters
Mystery still surrounds Israel’s Syria attack
Rarely does President George W. Bush bite his lip when discussing “axis of evil” states such as Syria and North Korea.
FT
Sarkozy wants everyone to have nuclear power - French nuclear power
Six months into his term, President Nicolas Sarkozy is aggressively
pursuing a new policy to give Muslim countries access to nuclear power
- and win lucrative contracts for France's energy champions in the
process. IHT
UN nuclear watchdog chief expresses concern about anti-Iran rhetoric from US
- The Associated Press via International Herald Tribune. 28
October 2007: The
head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran
was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern
that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster. "We have
information that there has been maybe some studies about possible
weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International
Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran
a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks." "But
have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used
into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program?
No."....MORE>>
Ahmadinejad felicitates Austrian counterpart on National Day. Tehran, Oct 25, IRNA President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cabled a message on Thursday to his Austrian
counterpart Heinz Fischer to congratulate him, the Austrian government
and nation on the country's Nation Day. According
to the Presidential Bureau, in the message, President Ahmadinejad
underlined that "Fortunately the two sides's high ranking officials are
determined to broaden friendly ties between the two countries." He
hoped to witness further expansion and consolidation of mutual ties
between the two nations. In
another development, Iran's First Vice President Parviz Davoudi sent a
message to Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer to congratulate him,
the Austrian government and nation on the country's National Day.
Condoleezza
Rice erhöht den Druck: Neue Strafmaßnahmen gegen Iran verkündet -
Zum ersten Mal richten sich US-Sanktionen gegen das Militär eines
fremden Landes - Uni Kassel, AG Friedensforschung Die USA haben ihre Sanktionen gegen den Iran verschärft. Die neuen
Maßnahmen richteten sich gegen Teile des Militärs und drei Banken,
teilten US-Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice und Finanzminister Henry
Paulson am 25. Oktober 2007 in Washington mit. Dies geschehe zum Schutz
von US-Interessen und der US-Bürger. "Das bedeutet, dass es keinem
US-Bürger und keiner privaten Organisation gestattet sein wird,
finanzielle Verbindungen mit diesen Personen und Einheiten einzugehen",
hieß es weiter in der Erklärung. Von den neuen Sanktionen sind die Revolutionswächter und ihre
Eliteeinheit, die El-Kuds-Truppen, betroffen. Den Revolutionswächtern
wird die Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen vorgeworfen, die
El-Kuds-Truppen werden als Unterstützer des Terrorismus gebrandmarkt.Die Strafmaßnahmen würden dabei helfen, das internationale
Finanzsystem vor den "illegalen Aktivitäten der iranischen Regierung zu
schützen", hieß es in der US-Erklärung weiter... MEHR HIER
Verschärfung der Sanktionen gegen Iran führt zu weiteren Eskalationen - Zur Verschärfung der Iran-Sanktionen durch die USA erklärt Norman Paech,
außenpolitischer Sprecher der Fraktion DIE LINKE:
Die USA haben im Alleingang neue Iran-Sanktionen verhängt, die das iranische
Verteidigungsministerium, die Revolutionsgarde und mehrere Banken sowie
Einzelpersonen treffen, die dadurch vom amerikanischen Finanzsystem isoliert werden
sollen.
Diese Sanktionen treiben die Eskalationspolitik der USA weiter voran. Sicher ist, dass
diese Maßnahmen nicht dazu beitragen werden, die Regierung Irans im Atomstreit zum
Einlenken zu bewegen. Vielmehr werden diplomatische Lösungen dadurch immer
schwieriger. Politische Verhandlungen mit geladenen Kanonen stehen im krassen
Widerspruch zu dem immer wieder behaupteten Interesse an einer diplomatischen
Lösung.
Vielmehr setzen die USA ihren Kriegskurs gegen den Iran weiter fort. Dies belegt nicht
zuletzt ein Posten über 88 Millionen US-Dollar für sogenannte „bunkerbrechende
Munition“ im amerikanischen Haushaltsplan für das am 01.10.07 begonnene
Haushaltjahr. Dass dieser Haushaltsposten im Zusammenhang mit einem möglichen
Angriff auf den Iran steht, haben Abgeordnete der oppositionellen Demokraten besorgt
geäußert.
Alle Anzeichen deuten also weiterhin unübersehbar auf einen zukünftigen Krieg gegen
den Iran hin. Denn die iranische Regierung wird unter diesen Bedingungen ihre
Urananreicherungs-Programme nicht aufgeben, zumal sie von Atommächten umgeben
ist, die erst kürzlich wieder milliardenschwere Waffenlieferungen aus den USA erhalten
haben.
Zwingend notwendig ist, dass die Bundesregierung nicht nur mit der Regierung des
Irans, sondern vor allem mit der US-Regierung spricht.
On-The-Record Briefing on Iran -
R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and
Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Stuart A. Levey. Washington, DC. October 25, 2007
Nuclear energy "indispensable" says EU report. 25 October 2007 - Worl Nuclear News Members
of the European Parliament have overwhelmingly voted in favour of a
report that states that nuclear energy will be indispensible if the EU
is to meet its basic energy needs in the medium term. The report,
Conventional Energy Sources and Energy Technology
was adopted with 509 votes in favour, 153 against and 30 abstentions.
It was drafted by Herbert Reul of the EPP-ED group (Group of the
European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in
the European Parliament). MORE>>Energy - New and Renewable Energies - Home Page.
Renewable energy sources are expected to be economically competitive
with conventional energy sources in the medium to long term....
MORE: ec.europa.eu/energy/res/index_en.htm
Mottaki: Iran never let its legitimate rights be trampled upon.
Oct 22,2007 "Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here on Monday
sent a letter to
his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner to declare that the Islamic
Republic of Iran is accountable to international system and it never
lets its legitimate rights be trampled upon...Iran is to show good-will
when it sees the same from the other side... [imposing] unilateral
sanctions against Iran would bear no fruits. It is about three decades
that Iran has faced sanctions mostly by the Americans or even some
unofficial sanctions imposed by the Europeans, he said...
[Imposing] one-sided sanctions against countries is regarded as an
illegal move which runs counter to UN Charter and is indicative of the
incompetency of the UNSC, ... in total contradiction with their claims
of pursuing diplomatic solutions, ...t he US
and a number of those countries possessing nuclear weapons have not
remained committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons while they
introduce themselves as grantors of such treaties in order to divert
world public opinion from their nuclear depots. In the meantime, the
Zionist regime is now developing its nuclear facilities without any
concern, he underlined. The foreign minister said those
who try to persuade the UNSC to impose more unjust sanctions on Iran,
prevent the same from being applied to the Zionist
regime..." MORE>>
Iran weist Terror-Vorwürfe der USA als lächerlich zurück - EUROPOLITAN - Reflections on Europe - 27.10.2007 Teheran - Der Iran hat in einer ersten Stellungnahme die Entscheidung der US-Regierung scharf kritisiert, weitere Sanktionen gegen das Land zu verhängen und
eine Einheit der regulären iranischen Streitkräfte als
Terrorismus-Förderer einzustufen. Die USA hatten am Donnerstag die
härteten Sanktionen gegen den Iran seit fast 30 Jahren verhängt. Kritik
an der Entscheidung kam auch von Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin.
Kritiker argumentieren, dass Sanktionen nur die Zivilbevölkerung träfen
und dem Regime keinen Schaden zufügten. Mohammad-Ali
Hosseini, Sprecher des iranischen Außenministeriums, bezeichnete die
Sanktionen als wertlos. Zudem stünden sie im krassen Widerspruch zur
internationalen Praxis und seien daher von vornherein zum Scheitern
verurteilt. „Solche lächerlichen Maßnahmen können die Amerikaner nicht
aus der Krise retten, die sie im Irak geschaffen haben", so Hosseini. Die
US-Regierung hatte die Sanktionen damit begründet, dass der Iran sein
Atomprogramm nicht offen lege, und den internationalen Terrorismus
fördere. Betroffen sind mehr als 20 iranische Unternehmen und
Einzelpersonen, die künftig vom amerikanischen Finanzsystem
ausgeschlossen werden sollen. Außerdem haben die USA die iranische
Eliteeinheit al-Kuds in die Liste der terroristischen Organisationen
aufgenommen. Damit stehen zum ersten Mal reguläre Streitkräfte eines
Landes auf der Terrorliste. Innerhalb der US-Regierung ist sogar
darüber nachgedacht worden, die iranischen Revolutionswächter als
Ganzes als Terrororganisation einzustufen. Die
nun verhängten Sanktionen sind die Schärfsten der USA seit der
islamischen Revolution von 1979. Damals besetzten Iraner die
US-Botschaft in Teheran. Kritik an der Entscheidung kam auch aus
Russland, das sich ebenso wie China gegen Sanktionen ausspricht.
Präsident Putin fragte: „Warum sollten wir die Situation
verschlechtern?" Putin ist davon überzeugt, dass eine Verschärfung der
Lage dem Regime in Teheran nicht schadet, sondern nützt. Durch
die jetzigen Sanktionen können die USA Guthaben der betroffenen
Personen, Unternehmen sowie der Revolutionsgarden einfrieren. Auf
diesem Wege wollen die USA dem Terrorismus die Finanzierung entziehen.
Allerdings sind von der Maßnahme auch hunderte ausländische Unternehmen
betroffen, die mit de Iran Geschäfte machen. Für Kritiker sind die
Sanktionen kontraproduktiv, da von einer Schwächung der Wirtschaft in
erster Linie die Zivilbevölkerung, und nicht die Staatsführung
betroffen ist. Vielmehr führten Sanktionen dazu, dass die Bevölkerung
gegen den Feind von außen zusammenrücke – und somit die Regierung eher
stärke als schwäche.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the USA
Ahmadinejad's stock rose even higher after his speech this week at
Columbia University; people in Iran and the Arab world are angry at
Columbia University president Lee Bollinger for insulting the Iranian
leader during his introduction. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, you
don’t invite someone to your house, even if he was a foe, then turn
around and insult him when he answers at your door. The entire uproar
over the Columbia event - played right into the Iranian leader's hand.
There was nothing new in his speech at this year’s UN General Assembly;
however, his presence dominated the opening of the meeting, attracting
worldwide coverage. Before even appearing at the UN and Columbia
University, the front page of the New York's Daily News ran the
headline "The evil has landed" while The New York Post called
Ahmadinejad the "Madman Iran Prez".
Is he a madman?
When Ahmadinejad says controversial things, the western world condemns him, but is he even talking to the West?
New America Media, Commentary, William O. Beeman, Posted: Sep 26, 2007
Editor’s Note: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comment that
homosexuality does not exist in Iran like it does in the West is true
in a sense, writes anthropologist William Beeman. In fact, same-sex
relations in Iran do look very different from what is called gay
behavior in the West.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was derided for his statement in
a Sept. 24 speech at Columbia University that homosexuality doesn't
exist in Iran. Though many Americans may find it incredible,
differences in the construction of sexual behavior do exist across
cultures.
As an anthropologist, I can state with confidence that sexuality varies
tremendously between cultures. The notion that one is either "gay" or
"straight" does not accord with what we observe in human sexual
behavior, which is far more flexible. This categorization is an
artifact of American culture, which glories in binary categories for
classifying people. Folks that identify as "bisexual" (yet another
ambiguous category) in the United States often get grief from both the
gay and straight community for "deluding" themselves about their
sexuality. Read More
LA Times: Ahmadinejad, 'ME hero' - 25 Sep 2007 - via PressTV
- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won the admiration of both Shias
and Sunnis in the Middle East region, a reputable US newspaper says.
"President Ahmadinejad has transcended national and religious divides
to become a hero across the Middle East," the Los Angeles Times said in
an article published on Monday. The articles points to the president's
popularity among Muslims who believe that their leaders are too
beholden to or frightened of the Bush administration. "I like him a
lot," Mahmoud Ali, a medical student in Cairo, was quoted by the daily
as saying. "He's trying to protect
himself and his nation from the dangers around him. He makes me feel
proud. He's a symbol of Islam. He seems the only person capable of
taking a stand against Israel and the West. " People in the Middle East consider Ahmadinejad as the rallying voice of Islam, the daily concluded.
Ahmadinejad: Iran will not attack Israel
- Iranian president says his country never sought to expand its
territory, says reported IAF attack in Syria stemmed from 'Israeli
expansionism' and had nothing to do with Iran. - 24 Sep 2007 - Associated Press via Israel News
Iranian Leader Addresses Columbia University -Monday, 24 Sep 2007 - MyFoxNY.com
-- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is speaking at Columbia
University. You can watch the speech in a live stream here on
MyFoxNY.com. Ahmadinejad is also addressing the United Nations and may
make a stop at Ground Zero during his visit to New York City.
Iran launches Holocaust miniseries- Associated
Press , THE JERUSALEM POST- Sep.
16, 2007
It is Iran's version of "Schindler's List," a
miniseries telling the
tale of an Iranian
diplomat in Paris who helps Jews escape the Holocaust- and people around the
country are riveted, tuning in every week to catch the latest episode.That's surprising enough in a
country where hard-line President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust even took
place. What's even more surprising is that government media produced
the series, and is airing it on state-run television. Even without Ahmadinejad's past
comments, the series would be a
surprise. The Holocaust is rarely mentioned in state media in Iran,
school textbooks don't discuss it and Iranians have little information
about it. Yet the series, titled "Zero
Degree Turn,"
is clearly sympathetic to the Jews' plight during
World War II. Scenes show men, women and children with yellow stars on
their clothes being taken forcibly out of their homes and loaded into
trucks by Nazi soldiers. "Where are they taking them?" the
horrified hero, a young Iranian
diplomat who works at the Iranian Embassy in Paris, asks someone in a
crowd of onlookers. "The Fascists are taking the Jews
to the concentration camps," the
man says. The hero, named Habib Parsa, then begins giving Iranian
passports to Jews to allow them to flee occupied France to
then-Palestine - a fictionalized version of a true story. The series could not have aired
without being condoned by Iran's
clerical leadership. The state broadcaster is under the control of the
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, who has final say in all
matters inside Iran. The government even allowed the
series to break another taboo in
Iran: For the first time, many actresses appear without the
state-mandated Islamic dress code. The producers wanted to
realistically portray 1940s Paris, and thus avoided the headscarves and
head-to-foot robes that all women must normally wear on Iranian TV. The show's appearance now may
reflect an attempt by Iran's
leadership to moderate its image as anti-Semitic and to underline a
distinction that Iranian officials often make - that their conflict is
with Israel, not with the Jewish people. Ahmadinejad sparked widespread
outrage in 2005 when he made comments
casting doubt on the Holocaust and saying the state of Israel should be
"wiped from the map." His government organized a conference of
Holocaust deniers and skeptics from around the world in December. About 25,000 Jews live in Iran,
the largest Jewish community in the
Middle East after Israel. They have one representative in the
Parliament of the country, which is run mostly by Islamic clerics. The series has won support even
from hardliners in Iran. Some of
them argue that it links the Holocaust with Israel's creation, thus
boosting an argument by Ahmadinejad that if the Nazi killing of Jews
did take place, the Palestinians who then lived in Palestine should not
have had to pay the price for it, by the creation of Israel after the
war. "The series differentiates
between Jews and Zionism. The ground for
forming Israel is prepared when Hitler's army puts pressure on activist
Jews. In this sense, it considers Nazism parallel to Zionism," the
hard-line newspaper Keyhan said. However, if the series does aim
to make that point, it has not done
so - overtly - so far. And the series, which began in
April, has been a revelation for some
Iranians. It has pulled many away from more popular satellite channels,
which are banned but which many watch anyway on illegal dishes. The
fare on state TV is usually dry. "Once, I wept when I learned
through the film what a dreadful
destiny the small nation had during the World War, in the heart of
so-called civilized Europe," said Mahboubeh Rahamati, a Teheran bank
teller. Kazem Gharibi said he watches the
series every Monday on a TV in his
grocery store. "Through this film, I understood
that Jews had a hard time in the
war - helpless and desperate, as we were when Iraq imposed war on us,"
he said, referring to the 8-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. The series began in April with a
love story between Parsa, the
Embassy employee, and a French Jew, Sara Stroke, in the early 1940s -
and many viewers say the love story pulls them as much as any history. After Paris is occupied by the
Nazis, Habib decides to forge Iranian
passports for many French Jews to save them from the Holocaust -
starting with Sara and her family. The German government accepts his
embassy's claim that the passport holders are from an Iranian tribe and
lets them leave France. Habib is later imprisoned by the
Nazis for espionage, in the TV
show, after his forgeries are discovered. He then is released and
returns to Teheran, where he is jailed again for forging passports. The Habib character is fictional
but is based on a true story of
diplomats in the Iranian Embassy in Paris in the 1940s who gave out
about 500 Iranian passports for Jews to use to escape. Eight more episodes remain in the
series, and viewers drawn by the
love story between Habib and Sara are on edge as they await the finish.
"I have watched the series from
the beginning," said Sedigheh
Karandish, a housewife and mother of two. "It's pulling me in to see
what these two people do at the end. Hopefully, it will be a happy
ending."
Iran's Unlikely TV
Hit - Show
Sympathetic to Plight Of Jews During the Holocaust Draws Millions Each
Week -By FARNAZ FASSIHI - September 7, 2007; Page B1
(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)
-
Every Monday
night at 10 o'clock, Iranians by
the millions tune into Channel One to watch the most expensive show
ever aired on the Islamic republic's state-owned television. Its
elaborate 1940s costumes and European locations are a far cry from the
typical Iranian TV fare of scarf-clad women and gray-suited men.But the most
surprising thing about the wildly
popular show is that it is a heart-wrenching tale of European Jews
during World War II. The hour-long drama, "Zero Degree Turn,"
centers
on a love story between an Iranian-Palestinian Muslim man and a French
Jewish woman. Over the course of the 22 episodes, the hero saves his
love from Nazi detention camps, and Iranian diplomats in France forge
passports for the woman and her family to sneak on to airplanes
carrying Iranian Jews to their homeland. On the surface, the
message of the lavish,
state-funded production appears sharply at odds with that sent out by
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called the
Holocaust a myth. In fact, the government's spending on the
show
underscores the subtle and often sophisticated way in which the Iranian
state uses its TV empire to send out political messages. The aim of the
show, according to many inside and outside the country, is to draw a
clear distinction between the government's views about Judaism -- which
is accepted across Iranian society -- and its stance on Israel -- which
the leadership denounces every chance it gets. "Iranians have
always differentiated between
ordinary Jews and a minority of Zionists," says Hassan Fatthi, the
show's writer and director. "The murder of innocent Jews during World
War II is just as despicable, sad and shocking as the killing of
innocent Palestinian women and children by racist Zionist soldiers," he
says. Mr. Fatthi, 48 years old, is a well-known
director of historical fiction for television. In the past, his work
has focused on Iranian history. But he also dabbles in comedy, winning
international critical acclaim two years ago for a hit feature,
"Marriage, Iranian Style." He says he came up with the idea
for "Zero
Degree Turn" four years ago as he was reading books about World War II
and stumbled across literature about charge d'affaires at the
Iranian embassy in Paris. Abdol Hussein Sardari saved over a thousand
European Jews by forging Iranian passports and claiming they belonged
to an Iranian tribe. VISIT THE WEBSITE• Official
site for "Zero Degree Turn."1 Mr. Fatthi says he
chose the title because the
world at the time was in dire circumstances, offering few options for
avoiding the terrors to come. Shot on location in Paris and Budapest,
the show stars Iranian heartthrob Shahab Husseini and is so popular
that its theme song -- an ode to getting lost in love -- is a hit, too. "It's
captivating. No matter where I am or what
I'm doing, on Monday nights I find a television set and watch the show.
So does every Jewish person I know here," says Morris Motamed, the lone
Jew in parliament. Mr. Fatthi enlisted the help of Iran's
Jewish
Association, an independent body that safeguards the community's
culture and heritage. The association has criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad's
comments about the Holocaust but has praised Mr. Fatthi's show. Iran
is home to some 25,000 Jews, the largest
population in the Middle East outside of Israel. Iran's Jews -- along
with Christians and Zorastrians -- are guaranteed equal rights in the
country's constitution. Iran's Jews are guaranteed one member of
parliament and are free to study Hebrew in school, pray in synagogues
and shop at kosher supermarkets. Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements,
it isn't government policy to question the Holocaust, and the country's
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, hasn't endorsed those views. While
Iran makes it no secret that it considers
Israel an enemy, it has been extremely touchy about criticism of its
treatment of Jewish citizens. The show is seen as an effort by the
government to erase the image that it may be anti-Semitic -- both at
home among Jews and non-Jews, and abroad. "In this show, you
notice that a new method of
political dialogue is being promoted that is more in line with the
modern world," says Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a reformist cleric and former
Iranian vice president. The message appears to be grabbing the
public.
Sara Khatibi, a 35-year-old mother and chemist in Tehran, says she and
her husband never miss an episode. "All we ever hear about Jews is
rants from the government about Israel," she says. "This is the first
time we are seeing another side of the story and learning about their
plight." The show also pushes Iran's political line
regarding the legitimacy of Israel: The Jewish state was conceived in
modern times by Western powers rather than as part of a centuries-old
desire of Jews for a return to their ancestral homeland. In one scene,
a rabbi declares it a bad idea for Jews to resettle in Arab lands. In
another, the French Jewish protagonist refuses a marriage offer by a
cousin, who is advocating the creation of Israel. Iran has
long used TV to shape public opinion,
where newspapers and the Internet are seen as media for the elite. The
state's control over radio and television is enshrined in the
constitution. Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, is not only head
of the armed forces and the judiciary, but also the national broadcast
authority. "The regime appreciates the fact that to appeal
to the masses, both in Iran and the Muslim world, television is the
most important outlet," says Karim Sadjadpour, an expert on Iran at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. On
any given day, the country's seven state-run
channels broadcast a mostly drab offering of news, sports, cooking
shows, soap operas and religious sermons. Political propaganda is
constantly fed into the mix. Dissidents such as students or reformers
are routinely paraded before cameras to read confessions after stints
of solitary imprisonment. A slick documentary-style program
recently aired
long interviews with two Iranian-Americans who were detained on
allegations of working to overthrow the regime. The interviews -- in
which the pair blandly admitted to meeting with Iranian scholars and
dissidents, but not to attempting to topple the government -- were
intercut with provocative scenes of demonstrations in Ukraine, where
the U.S. encouraged groups that eventually staged the successful Orange
Revolution in late 2004. In July, Iran launched a 24-hour
English-language satellite news channel called Press TV, joining the
ranks of the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera. Its Arabic news channel, Al Alam,
has been broadcasting news with an Iranian slant in the Arab world for
several years. Episodes of "Zero Degree Turn," broadcast in
Farsi, can be seen outside of Iran on the Internet, either streaming
live or downloaded at tv1.irib.ir/barnameha/sharhefilm.asp?code=00111090361062.
It is also broadcast with English subtitles on the state-controlled
Jameh Jam satellite channel, which is available on Europe's Hot Bird
satellite network. Mr. Fatthi also says Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting has been contacted about selling the show to networks in
other countries, but he doesn't know which ones. Write to
Farnaz Fassihi at farnaz.fassihi@wsj.com3 Corrections
& Amplifications:
Press TV, a 24-hour
English-language satellite
news channel, was launched by Iran in July. An earlier version of this
article incorrectly called the channel Pars News.
German envoy hails Iran-IAEA agreement
- Vienna - 10. September 2007 - IRNA - German
Ambassador to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Peter Gottwald
said on Monday that the agreement between Iran and the agency might
hopefully prepare the ground for resolving the remaining issues on
Iranian nuclear program. He
told IRNA on the sidelines of Board of Governors meet that the
agreement is a step towards responding to the questions which had
remained unanswered. "We are waiting to see it work and hope to
see it accomplish very soon." Gottwald
said that as IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told the Board of
Governors "we hope to see the matter be resolved within two or three
years." Asked whether
the UN Security Council may take another step against Iran while both
Iran and the agency are working on the timetable, he said that there
are two issues - one concerning Iranian activities in the past and the
second is about the current activities which go in parallel with each
other and "I cannot predict the outcome." "I hope
to see progress in the two subjects and their coming back to the right
track, the ambassador said. In
reply to a question whether Germany and the European states are opposed
to uranium enrichment by Iran, the ambassador said it is very complex.
"But, we always said that Iran has the right to have uranium enrichment
on the basis of Article 4 of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
He said that there is
problem concerning Iranian NPT rights which must be restored through
confidence building. "We never said Iran has no NPT right, we
call for confidence building." Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (PDF) - IAEA
IAEA agreement shows Iran's goodwill, says
deputy FM - London -
10. September 2007 - IRNA - Last
month's agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
shows Iran's goodwill to clear up any outstanding issues over the
country's civilian nuclear program, says deputy foreign minister Saeid
Jalili. If the main
problem between Iran and the world community was that Tehran has not
been transparent over nuclear experiments, then the IAEA agreement
should address that, Jalili said in an interview with the Financial
Times published Monday. The
agreement to resolve any unanswered questions, which was hailed by the
IAEA, was "another step to indicate Iran's goodwill," he said. "The
only solution is to take it (the issue) from the Security Council and
back to the IAEA," he said ahead of this week's meeting of the IAEA's
board of governors that is expected to scrutinize the deal. Jalili
said Iran had suspended its uranium enrichment program for two years in
2004 and 2005, under an agreement with European governments, but that
all it got out of this was a demand that it shut down the program
permanently. The daily
said what it called the IAEA "work plan" had complicated the pursuit by
the US and the EU of a new UN Security Council resolution to impose
further sanctions against Iran. Two
of the permanent members, Russia and China, it said, are likely to be
more sympathetic to Iran's argument that the agreement with the IAEA
should be tested before more measures are imposed.
Why Bush can get away with attacking Iran
- Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:47:34 - By JEAN BRICMONT, counterpunch.org Many
people n the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot
possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or, perhaps,
even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an enterprise. Various
particular reasons are put forward, such as: If he attacks, the Shiites
in Iraq will cut the US supply lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will
block the Straits of Hormuz. Russia won't allow such an attack. China
won't allow it -- they will dump the dollar. The Arab world will
explode. All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not
simply
obedient to Iran. If they don't rise against the United States when
their own country is occupied (or if don't rise very systematically),
they are not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country is
attacked. As for blocking the Straits, this will just be another
justification for more bombing of Iran. After all, a main casus belli
against Iran is, incredibly, that it supposedly helps the resistance
against US troops in Iraq, as if those troops were at home there. If
that can work as an argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure
that Iran might take will simply "justify" more bombing, possibly
nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be invaded, but
there is little it can do against long range bombing, accompanied by
nuclear threats. China is solely concerned with its own
development
and won't drop the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most Arab
governments, if not their populations, will look favorably on seeing
the Iranian Shiite leadership humiliated. Those governments have
sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition-after all,
that is what they managed to do after the attack on Iraq. With
the
replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete elimination of
what was left of the Gaullists (basically through lawsuits on rather
trivial matters), France has been changed from the most independent
European country to the most poodlish (this was in fact the main issue
in the recent presidential election, but it was never even mentioned
during the campaign.) In France, moreover, the secular "left"
is, in
the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion).
There will be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or
after the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the war
is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced with memories of
the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war will come
from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population, which will be
one more argument to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and
enemies of our "democratic civilization.") All the ideological
signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been
thoroughly demonized. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large
part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is
nice or not according to our views -- but whether there is any legal
reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of
human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of
intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that
ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of
international law. Israel and its fanatical American
supporters want
Iran attacked for its political crimes-supporting the rights of the
Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both US political parties
are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The
antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to
seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this
coming war-the Zionists-for fear of "provoking anti-Semitism". Blaming
Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran,
since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no
reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to
the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the
war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us. As far
as
Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto totalitarian
society-no articulate opposition is acceptable. The US Congress passes
one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution after another with "Stalinist"
majorities. The population does not seem to care. But if they
did,
but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system is extremely biased
against the emergence of a third party and the two big parties are
equally under Zionist influence. The only thing that might
stop the
war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government
with massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A
large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general
public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a
Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves,
while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that 'the
end is nigh'. Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but the
liberal
American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about
Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the "reassuring arguments"
cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it
weren't, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on
how others might do the job. Meanwhile, an enormous amount of
hatred
will have been spewed upon the world. But in the short term, it may
look like a big Western "victory", just like the creation of Israel in
1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953; just
like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big German
victory after the French defeat at Sedan in 1870. The Bush
administration will long be gone when the disastrous consequences of
that war will be felt. PS: This text is not meant to be a
prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action. I'll be more than happy if
facts prove me wrong. Jean
Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels
Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism is published by
Monthly Review Press.
Iran science
minister discusses UNESCO director general
- Iran-UNESCO-Maulana
- 06 Sep 2007 - IRNA Iran's
Minister of Science, Research and Technology Mohammad-Mehdi Zahedi here
Thursday held talks with Director of the United Nations Education,
Science, Culture Organization (UNESCO) Koichiro Matsuuro.
Zahedi, who is in Paris to take part in the commemorating
ceremony of Maulana Jalaleddin Mohammad Balkhi, addressed the audience
on the achievements in the recent Non-Aligned
Movement Ministerial
Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, which was held in
Tehran from September 3-4.
He underlined the need for honoring Iranians'
scientific
status in international circles, calling on UNESCO to employ Iranian
experts in regional offices and the secretariat of the international
body.
The minister assessed the outcome of the NAM's Tehran meeting
as positive and thanked Matsuura for dispatching his deputy for human
and social affairs to the summit.
Zahedi referred to the appointment of the new head of UNESCO
regional office in Tehran, expressing hope that its level will improve
in the fields of science, education and manpower.
Pointing to the establishment of a fund among regional
neighboring countries to repair cultural and historical monuments in
Iran, he called for
signing a memorandum of understanding between Iran
and the UNESCO in this respect.
Appreciating the UNESCO
efforts to revive historical and
cultural monuments around the world, he noted that the Organization
should pay more attention to the cultural heritage of Islamic
civilization.
The UNESCO
director general, for his part, praised Iran's
efforts to hold NAM meeting and underlined the importance of cultural
diversity in the current era.
Matsuura thanked Iranians for acceptance of head of new
UNESCO
office in Tehran, expressing hope that given the terms,
the office can
be upgraded in the scientific and technological fields.
He concluded that all countries worldwide are entitled to use
global scientific achievements.
Iran's
enemies target Islamic identity- 04 Sep 2007 - PressTV
- Iran's
enemies have tried to remove the prefix of 'Islamic' from the name of
some of the institutions in the country to weaken the government.
George Soros, the American financial speculator, says that a move by
the late founder of the Islamic Republic to hold a referendum on the
Islamic Republic of Iran was a wise step. "Drawing up Iran's
constitution was his second wise step and with these two steps (Imam)
Khomeini established the foundations of the Islamic state. We advised
our friends to focus on two points to undermine the Islamic regime:
first the Islamic identity of the regime and second the perfection of
the constitution. These goals should not be followed among the ordinary
people since Islam and (Imam) Khomeini are sensitive issues for them;
but in open discussions in universities and intellectual circles, the
Islamic identity of the regime could be introduced as a sign of
discrimination and the elimination of the Islamic prefix could be
pursued as a democratic move. Direct opposition to the regime's
constitution could also incite sensitivities. This objective can be
followed by casting doubt on the constitution…" Soros said. A member of
Mojahedin Enghelab Eslami and Mosharekat parties has recently told a
group of students that during the term of Mohammad Khatami as
president, it was proposed that the Islamic prefix be eliminated from
the name of students' organizations, so that everybody could freely
work with them. "We argued that the move would create an atmosphere of
competition, but some people said that you are seeking to separate
students from Islamic values and norms." He suggested that it is not
necessary to be committed to the constitution, adding that " Even we
cannot be committed to Nahj al-Balagha (a collection of speeches and
letters by Imam Ali (PBUH) ) since one cannot make sure that it has not
been distorted ."
IRGC boosting its deterrence power
- 04 Sep 2007 - PressTV - The
commander of the IRGC says superiority in intelligence gathering and
strategic missile capabilities are the strong points of the force.In
his first press conference after taking office as Commander of Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps, Major General Mohammad Ali Ja'fari said the
IRGC is increasing its preparedness to boost its deterrence power. He
added the IRGC is seeking to deter the enemies from launching any
attack against Iran. The Iranian commander termed the ability of the
IRGC in striking a devastating blow to the enemies from a short or long
distance as the basis of the military force's preparedness.He warned
that the foreign forces should leave the region as soon as possible as
their withdrawal would be in their interest.
Arrogance 'will cause US downfall' -
03 Sep 2007 - PressTV -Leader
of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says the
arrogance of the United States will eventually lead to its collapse. Addressing
a group of Iranian elite students, the Leader denounced Bush's latest
verbal attacks as 'hateful, arrogant and violent' saying such threats
cannot intimidate Iran. Ayatollah
Khamenei added the hegemonic powers are sinking in the quagmire created
by them, and they will eventually face collapse. The
Iranian nation has never been intimidated by such a language of threat
and it would bring these intoxicated and arrogant powers to their knees
through wisdom and prudence, the Leader added. Ayatollah
Khamenei termed the stance adopted by the US and its allies on Iran's
nuclear issue as a clear example of their bullying policies. "Those
countries tell us you should not have nuclear technology because we
don't trust you. Those who tell us these words waged two world wars and
resorted to military force wherever they could. Their atrocities in
Hiroshima, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Kosovo exemplify their
manner and performance. " Ayatollah
Khamenei reiterated that Iran has never started a military aggression
since the Islamic Revolution. The
Leader said Iran should become a scientific pole in the world,
reiterating that the Iranian nation would use its scientific
achievements to serve humanity. Ayatollah
Khamenei described science as an integral part of power adding, "The
US and some Western countries use their scientific capabilities as a
means to exert pressure on other countries. Therefore, we should also
resist them using science. " "That's why I have emphasized the
importance of a scientific movement in recent years," the
Leader concluded.
Official:Iran goes on with IAEA talks- 03 Sep
2007 - PressTV - Iran's
Deputy Foreign Minister Mahdi Mostafavi says Tehran would continue
nuclear talks with the IAEA until reaching definite results. He said
that Iran was not after buying time in its negotiations with the agency
but the talks should be given the required time in order to reach
desirable results. The Iranian official added Tehran has set no time
limit for the negotiations, adding that the settlement of outstanding
issues depends on progress in the Iran-IAEA negotiations. "Iran and the
Agency should maintain nuclear talks within a reasonable timing to
reach a final agreement on the issue." Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister
criticized the West for its "politically motivated" moves and added
some western countries are insisting that Iran's dossier remain in the
UN Security Council. He warned that hauling Iran's case before the UN
Security Council was a wrong move and political considerations could
hinder legal and technical approaches toward the issue.
UK prof. credits Iran's N-activities -
03 Sep 2007 - PressTV - A British professor
stressed that Iran's nuclear program is perfectly lawful and in
accordance with international rules and measures. Paul
Rogers, Professor at University of Bradford and Global Security
Consultant to Oxford Research Group, emphasized that there has been
nothing against international regulations and standards in Iran's
nuclear activities. Professor
Rogers, who has worked in the field of international security, arms
control and political violence for over 30 years said according to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), countries that have agreed not
to develop their nuclear armaments are allowed to expand their nuclear
programs under the control and supervision of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). "Since
Iran has left its institutions open for inspectors to visit, what this
country does is perfectly lawful and there is no proof of unlawful
activity for that," said the expert.
Zionists pushing for an attack on Iran- 03 Sep 2007 -
By Paul J. Balles, redress.cc via PressTV - Those
who follow what's going on in the world know that the invasion and
occupation of Iraq were based on a myth created by the
neo-conservatives in America, trumpeted by George W. Bush and spread by
a Zionist-controlled media. That myth, a fictionalized account of
non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's
non-existent arsenal was created by "dual
loyalists"
in the American administration who wanted to eliminate any possibility
of Iraq developing a destructive force that could endanger Israel. Now,
a new assault orchestrated by the Zionists is moving forward on the
basis of another myth: that Iran is developing a nuclear arsenal and
wants to "wipe Israel
off the map".
The invasion of Lebanon was part of that myth. When Hezbollah captured
two Israeli soldiers on Lebanese territory, the Israelis leapt at the
opportunity to use that as an excuse to attack Lebanon, provoking
Hezbollah to retaliate. The
Israelis
knew that if they provoked them, Hezbollah would respond in kind. While
destroying Lebanon's infrastructure and murdering its civilians, the
Zionist propaganda machine blathered its usual line about self-defense.
The conclusion of the deceptive argument was that Hezbollah's attacks
on Israel prove that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. The next
part of the sham argument holds that since Iran wants to eliminate
Israel, according to its president, and because it insists on its right
to develop a nuclear capability, and as they're lying about wanting
nuclear power for peaceful purposes, Iran must be attacked. However,
Iran's president did not say that Israel should be wiped off the map.
That interpretation of what Ahmedinejad said was based on a fraudulent
translation of his speech. His comment was "Imam [Khomeini] said “This regime that is occupying
Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." Carrying
the myth forward, G.W. Bush said, based entirely on the
misinterpretation of Ahmadinejad's speech: The threat from Iran is, of
course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel.
That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a
threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it
clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally,
Israel. The truth was that Iran advocated a regime change in Israel. As
Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann observed,
"To commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for
removal of Israel is serious deception and dangerous demagogy." The
myth that Iran would be a nuclear threat to Israel is the most
ludicrous part of the Zionist propaganda campaign and the most
dangerous part of the neo-conservatives' deception. Iran could not
conceivably consider a nuclear attack on Israel as long as they occupy
what Ahmadinejad referred to as "our
dear Palestinians".
The only conceivable danger to Israel from Iran - even if Iran had
nuclear weapons - would be (1) if the Palestinians were eliminated from
Palestine, and (2) if Israel then attacked Iran.
If Israelis keep harping on the myth about the potential danger from
Iran, knowing that the Iranians would never target Palestinians, the
only logical deduction is that Israel plans to rid occupied Palestine
of the Palestinians. Zionist lackey US Senator Joe Lieberman has
already urged America to bomb Iran. How many more lunatics will fall in
line?
Iran denounces human rights violation - 03 Sep 2007 -
PressTV
- Iran's
FM has criticized the violation of human rights in certain countries,
particularly the atrocities committed against Palestinians. Speaking as
the Chairman of the Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki said the issue of human rights has been exploited as
a tool to exert political pressure on independent states. Mottaki
condemned the West's double standards regarding the issue of human
rights, as evidenced by its secret prisons across Europe and the
violation of rights of minorities especially the Muslims. "Today, even the United Nations'
mechanisms are exploited." he said. "Using
human rights as a political leverage against some countries is a double
standard policy which has seriously tarnished the sacred cause of human
rights."Mottaki insisted that improvements be made to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "because the Islamic viewpoints
have not been included in it." Mottaki
highlighted the dignity assigned to human beings in the teachings of
Islam and said confronting the political and geographical hegemony
needs firm will and cooperation on the international scene especially
within the Non-Aligned Movement.On globalization, Mottaki said
globalization should not justify the domination of a particular culture
over others, but it should guarantee cultural diversity. "The NAM movement managed to
materialize the theory of power without domination," he
said. "The
world expects to see a more influential NAM role in restoring justice
and peace, because traces of the Cold War and double standard policies
are still lingering." The foreign minister said the
movement
needs to focus on overcoming insecurity, instability and
discrimination. At the end of his speech, the Iranian foreign minister
thanked the NAM members for their massive participation in Tehran's
meeting. The two-day meeting of Non-aligned Movement opened in Tehran
on Monday to discuss human rights and cultural diversity.
Nuclear News + Issues
Statement by IAEA Director General on New U.S. Intelligence Estimate on Iran - Press Release 2007/22 - 4 December 2007 | IAEA Director General
Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National
Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that
there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the
fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the
Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although
Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and
present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an
ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in
Iran. The Director General believes that this new assessment by the
U.S. should help to defuse the current crisis. At the same time, it
should prompt Iran to work actively with the IAEA to clarify specific
aspects of its past and present nuclear program as outlined in the work
plan and through the implementation of the additional protocol. This
would allow the Agency to provide the required assurances regarding the
nature of the program. While calling on Iran to
accelerate its cooperation with the Agency, in view of the new U.S.
Estimate, the Director General urges all parties concerned to enter
without delay into negotiations. Such negotiations are needed to build
confidence about the future direction of Iran´s nuclear program -
concern about which has been repeatedly expressed by the Security
Council. They are also needed to bring about a comprehensive and
durable solution that would normalise the relationship between Iran and
the international community.
ElBaradei to Defend Iran Plan At IAEA Governors Meet
The chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog will tell skeptical nations on
its governing board this week Iran's pledge of atomic transparency
should be given a chance to work, not dismissed as a time-buying ruse. Reuters / AP
U.N.
nuclear head urges Western patience on Iran plan
The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog body on Friday
rebuffed Western critics of a cooperation deal it has struck with Iran
as "back-seat drivers" and urged them to give it time to work to help
avoid war. Reuters
Iran
rejects 'impossible' nuclear suspension Iran's top nuclear negotiator
says it is "impossible" for
Tehran to yield to the key Western demand over its nuclear program,
even if the UN Security Council imposes further sanctions. AFP
Iran
Denies Plans to Build Atomic Bomb Iran's
supreme leader on Sunday denied his country had any plans to build
atomic weapons, but the president insisted the nuclear program itself
was not negotiable. AP
NAM to
support Iran-IAEA deal Iran's representative to the IAEA says that NAM
has ratified a
statement in support of the agreement reached between Iran and the
IAEA. presstv
Iran
will continue cooperation with IAEA: Hosseini Foreign Ministry
spokesman, Mohammad-Ali Hosseini, stressed Sunday that
Iran would continue its cooperation with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). IRNA
EU
ministers duck Iran nuclear issue for now
Iran's nuclear programme has slipped so far down the European Union's
agenda that it did not even figure at a two-day brainstorming session
of the bloc's 27 foreign ministers this week. Reuters/ FT
Iran’s
nuclear foes ‘racing to hell’: Ahmadinejad
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday lashed out at his Western foes,
which demand Iran halt, its sensitive nuclear activities, saying they
were ‘racing to hell’. AFP
IAEA
releases book on its golden jubilee A photographic history of nuclear
watchdog International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and its work mission, "Atom for Peace", has been launched
to commemorate its first 50 years. Hindu
Other Nuclear News
- 10. September 2007
US team due in Seoul ahead of North Korea trip A US team of experts
will arrive in Seoul Monday for talks
ahead of a visit to North Korea to discuss disabling the communist
state's nuclear facilities, officials said Sunday. AFP
Bush
offers North Korea a deal to end the world's oldest cold war George
Bush offered North Korea a peace deal yesterday that
would end the world's oldest and bloodiest cold war conflict on
condition that Pyongyang gives up its nuclear weapons programme. The Guardian
Iran sees progress in Russia talks on nuclear plant
Iran's talks with Russia on the start-up of the Islamic state's first
nuclear power plant are making progress, the Foreign Ministry said on
Sunday, days after local media reports said a deal had already been
reached. Reuters
Australia does nuclear deal with Japan
THE Federal Government has taken another step to positioning Australia
for nuclear power after securing a commitment from Japan to provide
reactor technology and expertise. The Herald Sun
Public doubts over nuclear power persist
Serious misgivings about nuclear power remain as well as concerns over
the role of private sector operators in the industry according to the
largest ever public consultation to be held in the UK. FT
INFCIRC/711, Information
Circlular,
27 August 2007 [pdf] - Communication dated 27 August 2007 from the
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency
concerning the text of the "Understandings of the Islamic Republic of
Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding
Issues"
INFCIRC/711, Information
Circlular,
27 August 2007 [pdf] - Communication dated 27 August 2007 from the
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency
concerning the text of the "Understandings of the Islamic Republic of
Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding
Issues"
13 July
2007 | IAEA Team Concludes Meeting in Tehran.
Following the June 2007 meeting between Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA
Director General, and Dr. Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme
National Security Council of Iran, an Agency delegation, headed by Mr.
Olli Heinonen, Deputy Director General for Safeguards, visited Iran
from 11 - 12 July 2007. Press
Release
Information
Circulars: Austria
| Germany
| Japan
| Russia
| UK A
new IAEA report on a multilateral framework for nuclear energy
presents a range of options that seek to guarantee supplies of nuclear
fuel while minimizing proliferation risks. IAEA Director General
ElBaredei presented the report this week to the Agency's Board of
Governors. The 90-plus page report - entitled Possible New Framework for the
Utilization of Nuclear Energy: Options for Assurance of Supply of
Nuclear Fuel
- addresses proposals put forward over the past two years by various
States and institutions. Some proposals call for the creation of an
actual or virtual reserve fuel bank of last resort, under IAEA
auspices, for the assurance of supply of nuclear fuel. This bank would
operate on the basis of apolitical and non-discriminatory
non-proliferation criteria. Others call for conversion of a national
facility into an international enrichment centre. Still others call for
the construction of a new, multinational enrichment facility under IAEA
control. "We are looking these proposals and their
associated legal,
technical, financial and institutional aspects," Dr. ElBaradei said.
"Trends clearly point to the need for developing a new multilateral
framework for the nuclear fuel cycle. And it´s clear that an
incremental approach, with multiple assurances in place, is the way to
move forward." Such
a multilateral framework could best be achieved through establishing
mechanisms that would:
assure the
supply of fuel for nuclear power plants,
over time,
convert enrichment and reprocessing facilities from national to
multilateral operations, and
limit future
enrichment and reprocessing to multilateral operations.
Such
a framework is voluntary and States are free to choose their fuel
options - no rights of States would compromised. Background: The
report comes at a time when more countries are expressing
interest in nuclear power for electricity generation, to help meet
rising energy demands. This would mean increased demand for fuel cycle
services. It also means an increase in the potential proliferation
risks created by the spread of sensitive nuclear technology, such as
that used in uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel
reprocessing. In
February 2005, the IAEA Director General issued a report on
Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. In September 2006,
the IAEA organized a Special Event during its annual General Conference
on the subject. The latest report was submitted to the Board for its
future consideration and discussion, including a decision on the
report´s public release.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) sees role for nuclear energy - 04
May 2007 - WNN Working
Group III of
the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has
published its Summary for Policy Makers report on mitigation of climate
change. The report acknowledged the role of nuclear energy as an option
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but said that safety, weapons
proliferation and waste remain as constraints. Current
nuclear power is included as a 'key mitigation technology' in the field
of energy supply while advanced nuclear power is considered key for the
2030 timeframe, alongside advanced
renewables like tidal and wave energy, concentrating solar and
photovoltaics. The
text states: "Given costs relative to other supply options, nuclear
power, which accounted for 16% of the electricity supply in 2005, can
have an 18% share of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon
prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents), but
safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints." A
footnote in the report states that Austria could not agree to this
text. Austria was concerned that by saying that nuclear energy could
have an 18% share of global electricity supply the IPCC was projecting
a significant increase in generation from nuclear power, especially
when the huge projected increase in overall electricity consumption is
taken into account. Greenpeace
reacted negatively to the inclusion of nuclear energy in the report,
stating that the IPCC had identified two "false solutions" in nuclear
energy and carbon capture and storage.
Bert
Metz, co-chair of Working Group III stressed that the IPCC reports
are technical reviews and do not make policy recommendations. The
report concludes that there are mitigation options available that could
be used to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions.
Stabilization between 445 and 710 parts per million of CO2-eq would,
the IPCC projects, result in a change in global gross domestic product
ranging between a 3% decrease and a small increase. The report
notes that to achieve the lower stabilization levels will
require greater emphasis on low carbon energy sources "such as
renewable energy and nuclear power." Further
information Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change WNN: IPCC
publishes report on impacts of climate change WNA: Policy
Responses to Global Warming Information Paper
PetroPars-Ofisi-OMV oil consortium- 4 Aug 2007 -
PressTV Iran,
Austria and Turkey have reached an agreement to structure a tripartite
consortium dealing with oil exploration and extraction in Iran.
According
to a statement released at the Istanbul Stock Exchange, the Turkish
Petrol Ofisi Company has announced that it has signed a contract with
Iran's PetroPars and Austria's OMV on the issue. The statement added
that the tripartite oil consortium would implement oil extraction and
exploration projects in Iran. "Once
the inked deal is approved by Iran's NIOC, the consortium will be
authorized to bid for oil projects in Iran. The Turkish Petrol Ofisi's
share in these projects will be 33 percent," said the statement. Petrol
Ofisi is one of the oldest oil enterprises in Turkey whose shares have
gradually been transferred to the private sector. The OMV is one of
Austria's largest oil companies. Iran's PetroPars Company was
registered in 1998. It is a subsidiary of NIOC, which owns all of its
shares. MPR/HGH/KB
Leitl verteidigt OMV gegen Drohungen der
USA und ist "voll und ganz hinter OMV"- 21 June 2007
- APAWien
- Wirtschaftskammer-Präsident Christoph Leitl weist die Drohungen der
USA gegen die OMV wegen des geplanten Gasgeschäftes mit dem Iran
zurück. Es sei selbstverständlich, dass sich österreichische
Unternehmen an Beschlüsse von UNO, EU, WTO sowie an die heimischen
Gesetze halten, sagte Leitl bei einer Pressekonferenz am Donnerstag. Es
könne aber nicht sein, dass ein einzelnes Land durch einseitige
Beschlüsse etwas anderes beschließe und mit Sanktionen drohe, betonte
Leitl, ohne die USA direkt zu erwähnen. Hochrangige
US-Regierungsvertreter hatten die OMV und die österreichische Regierung
am Dienstag davor gewarnt, das geplante Gasgeschäft mit dem Iran zu
realisieren. Als "äußerstes Mittel" wurde auch die Anwendung des "Iran
Sanctions Act" angedroht, der Strafmaßnahmen gegen Firmen ermöglicht,
die mehr als 20 Mio. Dollar (14,9 Mio. Euro) im Iran investieren.
Solche Firmen können etwa vom US-Kapitalmarkt ausgeschlossen werden.
Die österreichische Wirtschaft stehe jedenfalls "voll und ganz hinter
der OMV", betonte Leitl.
Iran, Austria boosting economic ties - 12 June 2007
- PressTV Austria
has always defended gas deal with Iran - Austrian Economy Minister has
said the project to transfer Iran's gas to Austria and Europe is by no
means against the EU regulations. At a meeting with his visiting
Iranian counterpart in Vienna, Martin Bartenstein said Austria is
willing to beef up cooperation with Iran in different areas. Referring
to the agreements made between the officials of the Iranian and
Austrian Chambers of Commerce, he said," Apart from oil and gas
sectors, the two countries can embark on joint investment in Africa,
Central Asia and Latin America." He described Iran as a significant
source of energy supply to Europe, stressing the importance of energy
security. Iran's Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs Davoud Danesh
Ja'fari, for his part, said the two countries are willing to expand
cooperation in customs and taxation. He underlined Iran's strategic
position in the Middle East and Austria's unique position in Europe,
calling for enhancement of mutual economic ties. Iranian oil officials
and the Austrian OMV signed three MOUs last April, based on which OMV
will purchase liquid gas from the National Iranian Gas Export Company
and will be cooperating with the Iran LNG plan scheduled to be
completed by 2012. MRD/RE
OMV satisfied with Iran gas talks - 14/05/2007 - PressTV Austria's
OMV says talks with Iran on a major gas deal were going well despite US
pressure to prevent foreign companies from investing there. A
board member of OMV Helmut Langanger said, "We are an Austrian company, I
have to make sure that we stick to European laws," the
Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) reported. "OMV plans to lift 3 billion
cubic meters of gas per year for delivery to European markets from the
LNG terminal," Langanger said. "OMV is also pushing ahead with
plans to develop Iran's Mehr oilfield," he said, adding,"
Development
will start later this year and OMV is targeting first oil output from
the field in 2010." "The project will cost several hundred million
dollars and output will total about 40,000 barrels per day,"
he said. OMV is the operator of the Mehr block with a 34 percent stake.
Spain's Repsol YPF and Chile's Sipetrol each have 33 percent stakes. OMV
signed a preliminary agreement with Iran last month to develop an area
of its giant South Pars gas field, build a liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminal and export the fuel.Iranian media reports said the
deal could be worth up to $ 30bn over 25 years. The US
had earlier voiced concerns over the Austrian company's deal with Iran.
Iranischer Vizeaußenminister weist Kritik an
OMV-Deal zurück. Araghchi: "Haben stets gute Beziehungen zu Österreich" - "Der Irak ist das Problem der USA" - 04/05/2007
- Der Standard Der
iranische Vizeaußenminister Sayyed Abbas Araghchi hat Kritik am
30-Milliarden-Dollar-Deal (22 Mrd. Euro) der OMV mit dem Iran
zurückgewiesen. "Diese
Kritiker
kennen die Realität nicht: Iran genießt ein hohes Maß an Stabilität,
das Land hat ein hohes Potenzial. Wir haben mit Österreich stets gute
Beziehungen unterhalten, Österreich und Iran profitieren vom guten
Gesprächsklima zwischen beiden Ländern", erklärte Araghchi
in einem Interview mit der Tageszeitung "Die Presse".
Außerdem rechtfertigte er die
vom iranischen Präsidenten Mahmoud Ahmadinejad geäußerten Zweifel am
Holocaust. "Wenn es ein solch schlimmes Verbrechen gegeben hat, wer hat
dieses Verbrechen begangen? Etwa die Palästinenser? Warum muss dieses
Volk für die Verbrechen Europas bezahlen?" Außerdem sollte man die
historischen Fakten studieren und erforschen, was wirklich passiert
sei, sagte Araghchi. Zugleich
beschuldigte er den Westen der Arroganz, weil dieser den Iran über
Menschenrechte und das iranische Nuklearprogramm belehren wolle. Einen
bewaffneten Konflikt wegen des Atomstreits fürchtet Araghchi nicht.
"Die Amerikaner wissen, was Amr Moussa, Generalsekretär der arabischen
Liga gesagt hat: Der Krieg im Irak hat das Tor zur Hölle aufgestoßen,
ein Krieg mit Iran wäre die Hölle selbst." Auf die Frage, ob der Iran
den USA helfen wolle, die Lage im Irak zu stabilisieren, meinte der
Vizeaußenminister: "Der Irak ist das Problem der USA. Vielleicht hat
man in Washington nun verstanden, dass man die Kooperation der Nachbarn
braucht, um das Problem lösen zu können." Allerdings habe man in der
Vergangenheit "sehr schlechte" Erfahrungen bei der Zusammenarbeit mit
den Vereinigten Staaten gemacht und sei daher vorsichtig. Ein
sofortiger Abzug der US-Truppen würde das Chaos im Irak noch
vergrößern, fügte Arghchi hinzu, aber "wir brauchen eine Perspektive
für einen Abzug der US-Truppen". Araghchi betonte zugleich das
Interesse des Iran an Stabilität im Nachbarland. "Ich
sehe das Risiko des Auseinanderfallens des Irak: Das Resultat wäre
Chaos, ein Paradies für Terroristen und eine Flüchtlingskatastrophe
ungeahnten Ausmaßes." (APA)
Envoy: Iran to export two bn tons of gas to
Austria for 25 years- 28/04/2007
- IRNA Iran's Ambassador to Vienna Seyed
Mohsen Nabavi said on Saturday that based on the agreement signed
recently between the Iranian and Austrian oil companies, 2.02 billion
tons of liquid gas will be exported to Austria for 25 years.
The
agreement was signed by Austria's biggest state-controlled oil company,
OMV AG, and National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). He told IRNA that
despite some similarity between the countries on the two sides of
Atlantic Ocean in their political and economic policies, their stance
on energy and the way to supply it are not the same. Nabavi made the
statement in response to the question about US pressures on Austria
about this deal. "Given
the shortage
of hydrocarbon sources in Europe, European Union member states seek to
guarantee the security of future energy supplies, in particular from
the Middle East, including Iran," he added. About EU
support for
the signed agreement, he said that lower reliance of European Union on
a single source to supply its energy requirements and the diversity of
such sources is of strategic importance and the EU intends to make
long-term investment in the energy sector. "Given
the facility of access to natural gas, its transfer through pipeline in
liquid form and the compatibility of natural gas with the environment
due to its low emissions of environmental pollutants, consumption of
this type of energy will increase in future among EU member states,"
he said. The Iranian diplomat said, "On
the other hand, Europe's new energy policy aims to guarantee balanced
relations between environmental sustainability, energy security and
competitiveness." Nabavi said that Europeans need to
invest
1,000 billion euros in infrastructural affairs and development of
modern energy technologies to make energy sources and supply more
diverse. "Besides, given
the increase
in oil price over recent years and the EU policy to reduce production
of greenhouse gases, there will be more demand for natural gas,"
he said. The Iranian ambassador said that undoubtedly EU support for Iran-Austria
agreement is mainly rooted in its growing energy requirements in
future, particularly natural gas. 2326/2322/1412
EU
explains Austria-Iran gas deal - 26/04/2007 -
PressTV The
EU has said that US concerns about OMV's plans to develop Iran's gas
industry does not mean the EU and the US have opposing energy policies.
Speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the European Energy
Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs said, "We should not somehow think that
because of the example of Iran we have a difference of opinion in
energy policy with the United States because we have clearly the same
basis. We are for the open markets, freedom of investment and ... the
United States clearly supports us in the diversification efforts.” OMV,
the leading oil and gas group in Central Europe, and Iran's National
Iranian Oil Company announced a deal on April 21 that includes the
development of some sectors of Iran's gas fields, a gas liquefaction
plant and purchasing contracts for liquefied natural gas. OMV is
currently involved in an offshore oil project in Iran. According to
Iranian reports, the deal would be worth $30 billion over the next 25
years. "US concerns of
the OMV deal
stem from United States legislation that clearly does not allow the US
companies to invest in Iran and the United States believes that it is
counterproductive,” the EU energy commissioner explained.
At the
same time, Piebalgs also noted that UN Security Council resolutions do
not prohibit oil and gas ventures with Iran, “To be fair, I'd say to the OMV
no United Nations resolution prevents them from doing this,”
he said. The US expressed concerns on March 23 about OMV's plans for a
natural gas project in Iran at a time when Iran is facing international
sanctions over its nuclear program. EU foreign ministers agreed on
April 23 on new sanctions against Iran, after Tehran refused
international requests to halt its uranium enrichment. The
US State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack was quoted as saying that
the US will bring its concerns up with the Austrian government and OMV.
Piebalgs said Washington is simply questioning whether this is the
right time to do this investment, “It
doesn't mean that there is a different policy (with the EU), just one
particular issue - Iran - where the United States has very strong views
as does the European Union,” he said. Support for OMV has
come
from Austria's government. Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik stressed on
April 23 that "no general economic boycott" existed against Iran. Eager
to reduce dependence on gas imports from Russia, the EU plans to expand
cooperation with the Caspian states as well as Algeria, Libya and Iran
on gas supply.
Breite Front gegen US-Einmischung-
25/04/2007 -- Der Standard Trotz
heftiger Kritik aus den USA zum geplanten Großprojekt der OMV im Iran
spürt Österreichs Öl- und Gaskonzern Rückenwind. Unterstützung für die
geplante Entwicklung von Gasfeldern und Weiterlieferung des
Energierohstoffs nach Europa kam am Dienstag erneut von Außenministerin
Ursula Plassnik, wobei sie sich im Gespräch mit dem
STANDARD für
eine klare Trennung der Atomsanktionen von anderen wirtschaftlichen
Aktivitäten aussprach. "Ich
plädiere für Nüchternheit und Sachlichkeit in der Debatte. Es handelt
sich bei den Aktivitäten der OMV im Iran um einen Geschäftsvorgang, der
mit dem Nuklearprogramm nichts zu tun hat und im Erdgasbereich
angesiedelt ist", sagte die Außenministerin. Man
setze die Sanktionen der UNO auf Punkt und Beistrich um, einen
vollständigen Wirtschaftsboykott gebe es aber nicht. Die Sanktionen
richteten sich ausschließlich gegen das Atomprogramm, nicht gegen die
Bevölkerung des Landes. Und schließlich gehe es auch um die
Energiesicherheit in der EU. Vorvertrag - Wie
berichtet, hat sich die OMV am Wochenende mit der nationalen iranischen
Ölgesellschaft NIOC auf einen nicht bindenden Vorvertrag für ein
Riesen-Gasprojekt verständigt. Dabei geht es um die Entwicklung von
Teilen des South Pars Gasfeldes im Persischen Golf (siehe Grafik), den
Bau einer Erdgas-Verflüssigungsanlage sowie Bezugsverträge. Alles in
allem hat das Projekt einen Wert von knapp 22 Mrd. Euro – verteilt auf
die nächsten 25 Jahre. Die USA hatten sich besorgt über die
geplante Zusammenarbeit geäußert. "Vielleicht ist es nicht die
günstigste Zeit für ... große Investitionen auf dem iranischen Gas-und
Ölsektor, wenn der Iran (wegen seiner Atompläne; Anm.) mit dem Rest der
internationalen Gemeinschaft im Konflikt liegt", sagte der Sprecher des
US-Außenministeriums, Sean McCormack, am Montag in Washington. Washington behalte sich vor, im
Falle eines Geschäftsabschlusses Sanktionen gegen die OMV zu verhängen.
Dies entspreche dem "Iran
Sanctions Act",
wonach die USA Strafmaßnahmen gegen Firmen ergreifen können, die mehr
als zehn Millionen Dollar (7,38 Mio. Euro) im Iran investieren. Solche
Firmen können vom US-Kapitalmarkt ausgeschlossen werden. Die
OMV
notiert nicht mit eigenen Aktien an der Wall Street, ist seit 1994 aber
mit sogenannten American Depository Receipts (ADR) am US-Kapitalmarkt
vertreten. ADRs sind Zertifikate, die im Fall der OMV von
JP
Morgan ausgestellt werden. JP Morgan hat die zugrunde liegenden Aktien
in Verwahrung. Ruttenstorfer:
"Wichtiger Schritt" "Energiesicherheit braucht
Diversifikation",
sagte OMV-Generaldirektor Wolfgang Ruttenstorfer. Er halte die geplante
Zusammenarbeit mit dem Iran für einen wichtigen Schritt, nicht von
Russland als einzigem Gasanbieter abhängig zu sein. Man halte sich dabei an alle
österreichischen Gesetze, an alle Beschlüsse der EU und der UNO und
auch an den unternehmenseigenen "Code of Ethics" zu den
Menschenrechten. Unterstützung
für die OMV gab es auch von SPÖ, ÖVP, FPÖ und BZÖ. Die Grüne
Abgeordnete Ulrike Lunacek kritisierte das Timing angesichts der gerade
verschärften EU-Sanktionen als "ungünstig". Bisher
ist die OMV im Iran in einem Onshore-Erdölprojekt tätig. Über die
weiteren Gespräche des Iran-Projekts wurde Stillschweigen vereinbart.
Mit einem Vertragsabschluss jedenfalls sei frühestens Ende 2007 zu
rechnen. Für Tobias Winter von der Raiffeisen
Centrobank
ist die Reaktion der USA zum OMV-Projekt "nicht überraschend gekommen",
zumal auch die Banken angehalten worden seien, ihre Geschäfte mit dem
Iran zurückzufahren. Das
Projekt an sich sei "strategisch sinnvoll". (stro, mimo,
APA, DER STANDARD, Print-Ausgabe, 25.4.2007)
Austrian MP supports Iran-Austria gas deal
- 25/04/2007 - IRNA An
Austrian MP on Wednesday supported gas deal between Iran and his
country's National Oil and Gas Company (OMV). Kurt
Eder, who is head of economic commission of Austrian parliament, also
told IRNA in an exclusive interview that the Europe economy requires
gas to provide its energy. "I assume the mutual agreement completely
correct, and support signing the gas deal," he said.
Pointing to the US pressure to hinder in the way of the deal, he added
that
Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer underlined in the parliament
session on the country's budget that his government will not permit
other countries to interfere its internal affairs. The MP
quoted the Chancellor as saying that the matter concerns economic
policies of Iran and Austria. "All
commitments and regulations will be implemented carefully, and Austrian
government and the ruling Social-Democrat party rebuke the criticism of
other countries," he noted. He clearly underlined that the project guarantees the energy
supply of European countries.
Austria defends gas deal with Iran- 24/04/2007 -
PressTV Austria
has dismissed US concerns over the deal recently signed between the
Austrian OMV and Iran for development of Iranian gas
industry. The
head of the Austrian OMV
Wolfgang Ruttenstorfer told reporters,"If one
wants to provide energy security then one has to focus on
diversification. Naturally,
with this diversification we will
keep to all Austrian laws, all decisions by the European Union, the
United Nations Security Council and of course also our code of ethics
in regards to human rights."Austria's Foreign Minister Ursula
Plassnik
also stressed that "no general economic boycott" existed against Iran.
"I see this deal also in light of energy security, that is
an issue for
all of us," she said on the sidelines of the EU foreign ministers'
meeting in Luxembourg. "Of
course OMV would carefully examine all aspects of the deal with respect
to the existing regulations," Plassnik
said. The United States expressed concerns Monday about OMV's plans for
a natural gas project in Iran. US
State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack said the US will bring its concerns up with the Austrian
government and OMV, even though UN Security Council
resolutions do not
prohibit oil and gas ventures with Iran.
EU agrees Iran sanctions as Russia signs
Bushehr protocol- 24 April 2007 - WNNThe
European Union (EU) has agreed to implement sanctions against Iran,
ahead of a meeting between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. The EU decision was taken
at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in
Luxembourg. In calling for a total, rather than partial, arms embargo,
the EU sanctions go further than those already agreed by the United
Nations after Iran refused to halt its uranium enrichment activities.
The EU has also added further people to the 'travel ban' list - they
are banned from the EU and their assets are frozen. The two negotiators
are due to meet in Turkey on 25 April, in their first meeting since
February. Iran remains adamant that it has no intention of halting its
uranium enrichment programme, which it insists is solely for the
production of nuclear fuel. However, the country is still "several
years" away from producing fuel for its nuclear power station,
according to Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy
Organisation (IAEO). According to Aghazadeh, a plant to produce
zirconium tubes to hold nuclear fuel rods has already been completed
and a facility for making fuel pellets should be ready next year.
On 21
April, the Iranian cabinet approved the establishment of three
companies, specialising in enrichment, fuel production and waste. The
companies - Uranium Processing and Nuclear Fuel Production Company,
Nuclear Enrichment Company, and Nuclear Energy Waste Company of Iran -
are all affiliated to the IAEO. Meanwhile, Russia and Iran have signed
a new protocol on 'stable financing' of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power
plant. Irina Yesipova of AtomStroyExport suggested that
the protocol
would go some way towards solving the funding issues that have beset
the project, but that some issues remained. Further talks are due in
May. Disagreements over Iran's payments to Russia have contributed to
delays to the startup of Iran's first nuclear plant, for which Russia
is to provide the fuel.Further
informationRussian Federal Atomic
Energy Agency (Rosatom) WNN: Iran
and EU fix date for meeting WNN: Iran:
Enrichment confirmed, Bushehr delay acknowledged WNN:
Insight Briefing: Iran
rebuked by sanctions
EU verschärft Iran-Sanktionen und setzt auf
Dialog - -(24/04/2007) - Reuters - Im
Atomkonflikt mit dem Iran hat die Europäische Union ihre Sanktionen
verschärft, zugleich aber die Bereitschaft zum Dialog mit der
Islamischen Republik bekundet. Die 27 EU-Außenminister beschlossen am
Montag in Luxemburg, abermals über die Beschlüsse des
UN-Sicherheitsrates hinaus zu gehen, um die Regierung in Teheran zum
Stopp der Uran-Anreicherung zu bewegen. Die Aussetzung dieses besonders
kritischen Teils des Atomprogramms ist für die EU die Bedingung für
formelle Verhandlungen mit dem Iran. Der EU-Außenbeauftragte Javier
Solana kündigte an, sich am Mittwoch in der Türkei mit dem iranischen
Chefunterhändler Ali Laridschani zu treffen. Auch der Iran und die USA
zeigten Gesprächsbereitschaft. Die
Sanktionen der EU und der Vereinten Nationen (UN) richten sich gegen
Vertreter und Mitarbeiter des Atomprogramms, mit dem sich der Iran nach
Befürchtungen von EU und USA in den Besitz von Atomwaffen bringen will.
Ein Sprecher des Auswärtigen Amtes sagte in Berlin, es sei Ziel der
deutschen EU-Ratspräsidentschaft, die UN-Sanktionen so schnell wie
möglich in europäisches Recht umzusetzen. Bei dem Treffen Solanas mit
Laridschani gehe es um die Frage, ob es eine Grundlage für neue
Verhandlungen über das Atomprogramm gebe. Solana sagte in Luxemburg,
auch er hoffe auf ein Signal der Verhandlungsbereitschaft. "Ich
hoffe, dass wir unsere vor einiger Zeit nicht weitergeführten Gespräche
darüber wieder aufnehmen können, ob wir uns auf Verhandlungen zubewegen
können." Es wäre das erste Gespräch beider
Spitzendiplomaten seit der Verschärfung der UN-Sanktionen im März.
Die Strafmaßnahmen waren ausgeweitet worden, weil der Iran ein Frist
zur Aussetzung der Uran-Anreicherung erneut hatte verstreichen lassen.Sein
Land wolle nicht aus dem Atomwaffensperrvertrag ausscheren und die
Sanktionen der UN mit friedlichen Mitteln abwehren, sagte Präsident
Mahmud Ahmadinedschad im spanischen Fernsehen.Die
Wurzel des Streits liege im Streben einiger Länder, das Monopol über
die Herstellung von Kernbrennstoffen zu besitzen. Ahmadinedschad rief
die Europäer zudem zu einem eigenständigen Kurs auf. "Sollten die Europäer nur die
Worte der USA übersetzen, können wir direkt mit den USA sprechen."
US-Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice rief den Iran zur Teilnahme an
einer Sicherheitskonferenz für den Irak auf. Sollte die Regierung in
Teheran ihren Außenminister nicht zu der im Mai geplanten Konferenz
schicken, wäre dies eine verpasste Gelegenheit, sagte Rice der
"Financial Times". Die USA wollten bei dem Treffen die Notwendigkeit
eines stabilen Iraks für die gesamte Region unterstreichen. An dem
zweitägigen Treffen in Ägypten sollen Vertreter der irakischen
Nachbarstaaten wie Syrien und die Türkei sowie der Weltmächte
teilnehmen. Auch der Iran ließ die Bereitschaft zu Dialog und
Deeskalation erkennen.
Trotz US-Kritik: OMV bleibt bei Iran-Projekt -
(24/04/2007) - Ö1 Mittagsjournal -
Christian
Williwald Die OMV bleibt bei ihrem Iran-Geschäft.
Generaldirektor Wolfgang
Ruttenstorfer sieht zumindest keinen Anlass, an dem Plan etwas zu
ändern. Er hält die
Zusammenarbeit mit dem Iran für einen wichtigen
Schritt, nicht von Russland als einzigem Gasanbieter abhängig zu sein.
Man halte sich dabei an
alle österreichischen Gesetze, an alle
Beschlüsse der
Europäischen Union, des Weltsicherheitsrates der
Vereinten Nationen "und natürlich auch an unseren Code of Ethics,
was
die Menschenrechte betrifft."
Viel mehr ist Ruttenstorfer zu dem Thema heute nicht zu
entlocken -
auch nicht, was die Kosten des OMV-Projekts im Iran betrifft. Auf die
Frage, ob die berichteten 22 Milliarden Euro nicht etwas hoch seien,
sagt Ruttenstorfer: "Wenn Sie das so sagen, wird das so sein."
"USA-Kritik kein Kriterium": Etwas
auskunftsfreudiger als sein Chef ist heute
OMV-Unternehmenssprecher Thomas Huemer. Er sagt sinngemäß, Kritik der
USA sei für die OMV kein Kriterium, ein Geschäft zu machen oder nicht
zu machen. Die OMV halte sich an Gesetze und internationale
Vereinbarungen. Das sei für ein Unternehmen wie die OMV wichtig. Thema
Menschenrechte: Auch die Kritik, die OMV mache Geschäfte mit
einem Land, das die
Menschenrechte missachtet, lässt Unternehmenssprecher Thomas Huemer
nicht gelten. Er verweist auf einen sogenannten "Code of Conduct",
einen Verhaltenskodex, den sich die OMV selbst verordnet hat. Die OMV
übernehme die Verantwortung, dass "im Umfeld ihrer Tätigkeiten keine
Menschenrechtsverletzungen stattfinden, von denen wir wissentlich
profitieren. Darüber hinaus halten wir uns an alle internationalen
Gesetze". "Alle kaufen Iran-Öl"
: Außerdem verweist Huemer darauf, dass viele Länder aus dem Iran Öl
beziehen. Es sei schwer zu verstehen, warum sich die USA gerade an dem
Plan der OMV stoßen. Der Iran sei ein sehr großer Ölexporteur, "alle
Welt kauft Öl aus dem Iran, das war bisher kein Thema." Regierung
prüft: Huemer glaubt nicht, dass die OMV-Führung die Reaktion
aus den USA
unterschätzt habe. Auf die Frage, ob das Finanzministerium als
Eigentümer-Vertreter von dem Plan gewusst habe, sagt er, alle
internationalen Geschäftstätigkeiten der OMV seien strategiekonform.
Und die Strategie sei mit dem Aufsichtsrat geklärt. Die Regierung wird
das geplante Geschäft jedenfalls - wie das in
solchen Fällen üblich ist - prüfen. Welches Ministerium zuständig ist,
ist noch unklar.
Vor
Mega-Erdgas-Deal mit dem Iran - Die OMV verhandelt über ein
Erdgasprojekt im Persischen Golf, das mit einem Volumen von 22
Milliarden Euro das größte ist, das der Iran je mit einer europäischen
Firma abschloss.(22/04/2007) - DerStandard Die OMV will künftig die riesigen
iranischen Erdgasreserven im Persischen Golf anzapfen:
Der börsenotierte Öl- und Gaskonzern hat eine Absichtserklärung mit der
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC)
unterzeichnet. Angaben zum
finanziellen Umfang des Projekts wurden von OMV-Seite nicht gemacht.
Nach iranischen Presseberichten soll der geplante Deal ein
Geschäftsvolumen bis zu 30 Mrd. Dollar (22 Mrd. Euro) über die nächsten
25 Jahre ausmachen. Das
staatliche iranische Fernsehen sprach vom
größten jemals zwischen dem Iran und einer europäischen Firma
vereinbarten Gasgeschäft, meldete die Nachrichtenagentur
Reuters aus
Teheran. Bei dem Projekt gehe es um mögliche Beteiligungen an der
Entwicklung von Teilen des South Pars Gasfelds im Persischen
Golf,
einer Verflüssigungsanlage
für Flüssig-Erdgas(Liquefied
Natural Gas -
Iran LNG) sowie Bezugsverträge
für Flüssig-Erdgas, teilte die OMV am
Samstag in einer Aussendung mit. Vereinbarung unterzeichnet. Die
staatliche iranische Nachrichtenagentur IRNA
meldete auf ihrer Homepage, "der Iran und Österreich" hätten am Samstag
am Rande der 12. Internationalen Öl, Gas und Petrochemie-Messe eine
Vereinbarung unterzeichnet. Demnach werde die OMV einen
Zehn-Prozent-Anteil am iranischen LNG-Projekt übernehmen und jährlich
2,2 Mio. Tonnen LNG (Flüssig-Erdgas) für Europa liefern. Gemäß einem
weiteren Abkommen zwischen der OMV und der iranischen Petropars
Gesellschaft werde die österreichische Gesellschaft 20 Prozent an einem
Entwicklungsprojekt im South Pars Gasfeld übernehmen.
Das Projekt wäre das erste Erdgasprojekt der OMV im Iran, sagte
OMV-Sprecher Thomas Huemer am Wochenende auf Anfrage der
APA. Bisher
ist die OMV im Iran in einem Onshore-Erdölprojekt tätig. Über die
weiteren Gespräche des Iran-Projekts wurde Stillschweigen vereinbart.
Konkrete Ergebnisse werden laut OMV erst für die zweite
Hälfte des
Jahres 2007 erwartet. Das Erdgasprojekt im Iran steht im Zusammenhang
mit dem Flüssig-Erdgas-Terminalprojekt in Kroatien: Die OMV bereitet im
Rahmen eines Konsortiums den Bau eines Flüssiggas-Terminals auf der kroatischen Insel Krk
vor, in den in den nächsten Jahren bis zu 700 Mio. Euro investiert
werden sollen. "Vor dem Hintergrund des geplanten
Regasifizierungsterminals für LNG (Flüssig-Erdgas) in Kroatien würde
ein derartiges integriertes Projekt von zwei OMV Geschäftsbereichen
(Exploration und Produktion sowie Erdgas) im Iran Sinn machen", betont
die OMV heute. Flüssiggas-Terminal
in Kroatien - Der
Flüssiggas-Terminal in Kroatien soll nach heutiger Planung 2011/2012 in
Betrieb gehen, so das Unternehmen. Als eine mögliche Bezugsquelle biete
sich unter anderem der Iran mit seinen großen Gasreserven an. Das
iranische South Pars Gasfeld und das North Field in Katar ist das
größte bekannte Gasfeld der Welt. Die LNG-Technologie stellt eine
Alternative zum Transport via Pipeline dar. Dabei werden große
Gasmengen bei minus 160 Grad Celsius verflüssigt, damit auf ein
Sechshundertstel ihres ursprünglichen Volumens "geschrumpft", per
Schiff transportiert und in speziellen Anlagen am Bestimmungshafen
wieder in Gas verwandelt ("Regasifizierung"). Angesichts steigender
Energiepreise wird laut Branchenexperten die Verflüssigung von Gas zum
Transport via Schiff immer attraktiver. Die OMV ist bereits in einem
Onshore-Erdölprojekt im Iran engagiert.
Im April 2001 unterzeichnete die OMV
ein Abkommen mit der National
Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) über Explorationstätigkeit in
der
westiranischen Region
Zagros. Im Februar 2007 wurde die
Wirtschaftlichkeit des Feldes von der NIOC bestätigt. Nunmehr wird ein
Plan für die Feld-Entwicklung erarbeitet. (APA) (Siehe auch: Hintergrund: Iran-Katar-Gasfeld)
Iran, Austria to ink gas deals -
(22/04/2007) - Tehran Times-- The
National Iranian Gas
Company (NIGC) and Austria’s OMV, Central Europe’s
leading oil and gas group, are due to sign gas deals. On the sidelines
of the 12th
International Oil, Gas and Petrochemicals Exhibition
underway in Tehran, agreements were reached to sign a contract in the
framework of Iranian participation in the "Nabucco" pipeline, Iran’s
LNG ventures (purchasing liquefied natural gas from Iran)
and
investment deals in Iran’s LNG projects. The Nabucco pipeline project
is due to transport Iranian and Caspian Sea gas through Turkey,
Bulgaria, and Romania to Austria and is the European Union’s (EU)
attempt at having a common energy policy that would reduce its
dependence on Russia. Austria’s OMV Company General Manager Erich Bauer
said EU aimed at reducing its dependence on Russia’s gas and was
seeking to transfer the
gas of theCaspian
Sea and Persian Gulf.
Talking to PIN, Bauer added, “Iran is among the world’s largest holder
of gas reserves and the transfer of Iran’s gas to Europe through
Nabucco pipeline is a real possibility. “Even after the running of
Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline, the export of Iran’s gas to
Europe through Nabucco pipeline is an option.” It is about two months
that Bauer has taken the helm of OMV’s
Tehran-based office.Bauer
termed the oil show in Iran as invaluable. He told PIN the
international exhibition provided a good opportunity to exchange views
and information on the oil industry.“We
consider the oil and gas
exhibition in Iran as a very good opportunity to introduce our
activities to other companies, participants, and visitors,” Bauer
added. He underlined that the foreign companies, which were keen to
cooperate with Iran, needed to attend the oil show and share their
know-how and experience. “Since its career in Iran in
2001, OMV has
been regularly present in the annual oil and gas exhibition,” said the
general manager. OMV is among the giant European oil and gas companies,
which is active mainly in exploration and production fields. The
Austrian company is in charge of implementing the project of oil
exploration in Mehr Block in the southern Iranian province of Khuzestan.
Oil Minister: Iran, Austria Ink $30 bln Gas
Deal -
(22/04/2007) - TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iranian
Oil Minister Seyed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said endorsement of a $ 30 bln
memorandum of understanding between Iran and Austria's OMV paved the
way for Iran's gas exports to Europe. Iran signed a major
agreement
with Austrian energy group OMV yesterday to help develop the country's
vast gas resources and build a plant for liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The understanding is deemed as Iran's biggest such agreement with
Europe. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the 12th
International Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Exhibition here in Tehran on
Sunday, Hamaneh also said, "To
export natural gas to Europe, Turkey and
European countries should first settle down the problems pertaining to
the gas transfer pipeline." "Once the two sides
settle their
disputes, we can put gas exports to Europe on our agenda on the basis
of a time-table," he continued. Regarding the contract, the Iranian oil
minister said, "The
30-billion-dollar agreement signed yesterday
included both sales of LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) and (the Austrian
side's) participation in the implementation of the project." "Once
this agreement is implemented, a part of phase 12 of the South Pars
development plan will be carried out by the Austrian OMV while Iran
will undertake to sell LNG to this company," he continued.
Also noting
the start of executive operations of phase 12 of South Pars, he said,
"Under the present
conditions, this agreement is very important to us."
He also added that attracting cooperation is very precious for Iran at
the present stage. Elsewhere, Hamaneh assessed the 12th International
Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Exhibition as more successful than previous
years, and added,"A
number of 519 foreign companies have partaken in
the 12th exhibition, which shows 5 to 6 percent of increase in
comparison to the past. "Considering that the country
(Iran) is under
international pressures, participation of this number of companies
reveals their tendency for making investments in Iran's oil industry,"
the Iranian oil minister concluded.
Iran Signs Gas Deal with Austria's OMV
- - (22/04/2007) - Fars News Agency- Iran
signed a major agreement with Austrian energy group OMV yesterday to
help develop the country's vast gas resources and build a plant for
liquefied natural gas (LNG). Iran's state-run television
described it as Iran's biggest such contract with Europe, and some
Iranian media put its total value at up to $30bn over 25 years,
including the sale of billions of cubic meters of natural gas to the
continent. But OMV made clear the deal was still at an early stage and
did not give any figures, suggesting it had so far only signed a
non-binding memorandum of understanding. It comes at a
time of
escalating tension between the West and Iran over Tehran's disputed
nuclear program. The United
States has urged its allies not to invest
in the Islamic Republic. Iran sits atop the world's
second-largest gas
reserves after Russia. But politics, sanctions and
construction delays
have slowed its gas development. The huge oil and gas reserves
are
a strong magnet for international energy companies despite the
political risks. "Officials of Iran's Oil Ministry and the managing
director of the Austrian OMV have signed a gas agreement worth $18bn,"
Iranian state radio said. The Oil Ministry's Shana news agency
estimated the long term value at $30bn. Reuters quoted OMV as saying it
had signed a so-called Heads of Agreement - a non-binding document
outlining the main issues of a tentative partnership accord-with Iran's
national oil company NIOC. It concerned participation in
the
development of an area of the South Pars gas field, an LNG plant and a
subscriber agreement for such gas, it said. LNG is gas frozen to liquid
for transport in special tankers, avoiding the need for pipelines. The
Austrian firm said Iran could supply LNG for a Croatian regasification
plant which OMV is helping to set up and which should start operating
in 2011-2012. It added, "Further
talks on this matter are confidential.
Concrete results are not expected until the second half of 2007." UN
sanctions have been imposed on Iran for its refusal to halt enrichment
of uranium, but OMV spokesman Thomas Huemer said the agreement with
Iran did not violate any international rules. "We are acting within the
framework of Austrian
law, European
law and the United
Nations' rules,"
he said in Vienna. Iran says its atom work is aimed at generating
electricity so that it can export more of its valuable gas and
oil.
OMV
and National Iranian Oil Company: Heads of Agreement for participation
in the Iranian South Pars Gas Field and Iran LNG project-
April 21, 2007 - 8:57 a.m. (CET) - OMV,
Central Europe’s leading oil and gas group, today signed a Heads of
Agreement with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) regarding a
participation in the development of an area in the South Pars Gas Field
in the Persian Gulf (South Pars Field phase 12), a liquefaction plant
for Liquefied Natural Gas (Iran LNG) and a subscriber agreement for
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). A coordinated and aligned project in Iran
on the basis of an integrated approach would involve two of OMV’s
business segments (Exploration & Production and Gas) and would
complement the planed LNG regasification terminal in Croatia,
in the
development of which OMV participates. According to current plans, the
LNG terminal in Croatia should start operating in 2011/2012 and Iran,
with its substantial gas reserves, could be a source of supply.Further
talks on this matter are confidential. Concrete results are not
expected until the second half of 2007. Balanced international
E&P portfolio - OMV
owns a balanced international E&P portfolio in 20 countries
organized around six core regions, namely the Danube and Adriatic
region, Northern Africa,Northwestern Europe,
the Middle East,
Australia/New Zealand
and Russia/Caspian.
OMV’s daily production volume
is approximately 324,000 boe/d, and the company’s reserves are
approximately 1.3 bn boe. Background information: South
Pars Gas Field - The
Iranian South Pars Gas Field and the North Field in Qatar is the
largest known gas field in the world with estimated gas reserves of
approximately 1,300 trillion cubic feet (221 bn boe). Of this,
approximately 500 trillion cubic feet (85 bn boe) are located in
Iranian territory. Iran plans to develop this gas field in several
phases. The OMV-NIOC MoU
concerns one of these phases of development
(South Pars field phase 12). OMV in Iran -
OMV
signed an exploration contract (exploration of oil and gas) for the
Zagros region with the National Iranian Oil Company in May 2001.
Work
focuses on an area covering 2,500 km², the so-called “Mehr Block”. OMV
(34% share) is the operator of the consortium, in which Repsol YPF (Spain) and Sipetrol
(Chile)
each hold 33%. The first exploration well was carried out successfully
in January 2005. The drilling reached a depth of 4,148 meters. First
production tests of the reservoir yielded an average flow rate of 1,040
bbl/day. In February 2007, the commerciality of the field was confirmed
by the NIOC. A field development plan is being developed. OMV
Aktiengesellschaft - With
Group sales of EUR 18.97 billion and a workforce of 40,993 employees in
2006, as well as market capitalization of approx. EUR 14 billion, OMV
Aktiengesellschaft is Austria’s largest listed industrial company. As
the leading oil and gas group in Central Europe, OMV is active in
Refining and Marketing (R&M) in 13 countries. In Exploration
and
Production (E&P) OMV is active in 20 countries on five
continents.
OMV sells more than 14 bcm gas a year. OMV’s Austrian gas hub
Baumgarten annually transports approximately 47 bcm of gas. OMV’s
Central European Gas Hub is amongst the three largest hubs in Europe.
OMV holds stakes in integrated chemical and petrochemical plants – 50%
in AMI Agrolinz International GmbH and 35% stake in Borealis A/S, one
of the world’s leading producers of polyolefin. Other important
holdings are: 51% of Petrom SA, 50% of EconGas GmbH, 45% of the
BAYERNOIL refining network and 10% of the Hungarian company MOL. With
the acquisition of a majority stake in the Romanian Petrom, OMV has
become the largest oil and gas group in Central Europe, with oil and
gas reserves of approx. 1.3 billion boe, daily production of around
324,000 boe and an annual refining capacity of 26.4 million metric
tons. OMV now has over
2,540 filling stations in 13 countries. The
market share of the group in the R&M business segment in the
Danube
Region is now 20%. OMV further strengthened its leading position in the
European growth belt through the acquisition of 34% of Petrol Ofisi in
2006, Turkey’s leading company in the retail and commercial business.
In June 2006, OMV has established the OMV Future Energy Fund, a wholly
owned subsidiary to support projects in renewable energy with more than
EUR 100 Mio to initiate the change from a pure oil and gas group to an
energy group with renewable energy in its portfolio. OMV:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) - OMV
is actively committed to the values enshrined in its Code of Conduct.
These include a strong sense of responsibility
towards the social and
natural environment in economically weak regions. OMV
works hard to
address economic,
environmental
and social issues
related to its
operations. Its CSR activities
are fully documented in biannual
performance reports compiled according to Global Reporting Initiative
guidelines.
The
Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR - Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament,
the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee -
Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs : making Europe a pole
of excellence on corporate social responsibility /* COM/2006/0136 final
*/: "1.
INTRODUCTION: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a
concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns
in their business operations and in their interaction with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis[1]. It is about enterprises deciding
to go beyond minimum legal requirements and obligations stemming from
collective agreements in order to address societal needs. Through CSR,
enterprises of all sizes, in cooperation with their stakeholders, can
help to reconcile economic, social and environmental ambitions. As
such, CSR has become an increasingly important concept both globally
and within the EU, and is part of the debate about globalisation,
competitiveness and sustainability. In Europe, the promotion of CSR
reflects the need to defend common values and increase the sense of
solidarity and cohesion...." mehr>>
OMV und National Iranian Oil
Company: „Heads of Agreement“ für Beteiligung am iranischen South Pars
Gasfeld und Iran LNG Projekt- 21.
April 2007 (8:57) - OMV Presse Aktuelle News: Die OMV,
Mitteleuropas führender Öl- und Gaskonzern unterzeichnete heute mit der
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) ein „Heads of Agreement“
betreffend möglicher Beteiligungen
des Unternehmens an der Entwicklung
von Teilen des South Pars Gasfelds (South Pars Feld, Phase
12) im
Persischen Golf, einer Verflüssigungsanlage
für Liquefied Natural
Gas
(Iran LNG) sowie BezugsverträgenLiquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Vor
dem Hintergrund eines geplanten LNG
Regasifizierungsterminals in
Kroatien, an dessen Entwicklung die OMV maßgeblich
beteiligt ist, würde
ein derartiges integriertes Projekt von zwei OMV Geschäftsbereichen
(Exploration und Produktion sowie Erdgas) im Iran Sinn machen. Der LNG
Terminal in Kroatien soll nach heutiger Planung 2011/2012 in Betrieb
gehen, als eine mögliche Bezugsquelle bietet sich unter anderem der
Iran mit seinen großen Gasreserven an. Über die weiteren
diesbezüglichen Gespräche wurde Stillschweigen vereinbart. Konkrete
Ergebnisse werden erst für die zweite Hälfte des Jahres 2007
erwartet. Ausgewogenes
internationales E&P-Portfolio - OMV
hält ein ausgewogenes internationales E&P-Portfolio in 20
Ländern,
das sich auf sechs Kernregionen aufteilt: den Donau-Adria-Raum,
Nordafrika, Nord- und Westeuropa, den Mittleren Osten,
Australien/Neuseeland und Russland/Kaspische Region. Die
Tagesproduktion der OMV liegt bei rund 324.000 boe, die Öl- und
Gasreserven betragen rund 1,3 Milliarden boe. Hintergrundinformationen:
South
Pars Gasfeld- Das
iranische South Pars Gasfeld und das North Field in Katar ist das
größte bekannte Gasfeld der Welt mit geschätzten Gasreserven von etwa
1.300 Trillionen Kubikfuß (221 Mrd boe), wobei rund 500 Trillionen
Kubikfuß (85 Mrd boe) auf iranischer Seite liegen. Der Iran plant
dieses Gasfeld in mehreren Phasen zu entwickeln. Die OMV –NIOC
Absichtserklärung betrifft einen Teil dieser Entwicklungsphase (South
Pars Feld Phase 12). OMV
im Iran - Im
April 2001 unterzeichnete die OMV ein Abkommen mit der National Iranian
Oil Company (NIOC) über Explorationstätigkeit (Öl- und Gassuche) in der
Region Zagros, Die Arbeiten konzentrieren sich auf ein 2.500 km² großes
Gebiet, den so genannten „Mehr Block“. Die OMV mit 34% Anteilen
operiert dabei als Betriebsführer eines Konsortiums, in dem Repsol YPF
(Spanien) und Sipetrol (Chile) zu je 33% beteiligt sind. Die erste
Explorationsbohrung wurde im Jänner 2005 erfolgreich abgeschlossen. Die
Bohrung erreichte eine Tiefe von 4.148 Meter. Erste Produktionstests
ergaben eine Rate von 1.040 Barrels pro Tag (bbl/d). Im Februar 2007
wurde die Wirtschaftlichkeit des Feldes von der NIOC bestätigt. Nunmehr
wird ein Plan für die Feldesentwicklung erarbeitet. OMV
Aktiengesellschaft: - Mit
einem Konzernumsatz von EUR 18,97 Mrd und einem Mitarbeiterstand von
40.993 im Jahr 2006 sowie einer Marktkapitalisierung von rund EUR 14
Mrd ist die OMV Aktiengesellschaft das größte börsenotierte
Industrieunternehmen Österreichs. Als führendes Erdöl- und
Erdgasunternehmen Mitteleuropas ist der OMV Konzern im Bereich
Raffinerien & Marketing (R&M) in 13 Ländern tätig. Im
Bereich
Exploration & Produktion (E&P) ist die OMV in 20
Ländern auf
fünf Kontinenten aktiv. Der Bereich Erdgas verkauft jährlich über 14
Mrd m³ Gas, über die österreichische OMV Erdgasdrehscheibe Baumgarten
werden jährlich rund 47 Mrd m³ Gas transportiert. Der Central European
Gas Hub der OMV zählt zu den drei größten Hubs Europas. Die
OMV ist an
integrierten Chemie- u. Petrochemiebetrieben – zu 50% an AMI Agrolinz
Melamin International GmbH und zu 35% an Borealis A/S, einem der
weltweit führenden Polyolefin-Produzenten – beteiligt. Weitere wichtige
Beteiligungen: 51% an Petrom SA, 50% an der EconGas GmbH, 45% am
BAYERNOIL-Raffinerieverbund, 10% an der ungarischen MOL. Mit der
Übernahme der Aktienmehrheit an der rumänischen Petrom entstand der
größte Öl- und Erdgaskonzern Mitteleuropas mit Öl- und Gasreserven von
rund 1,3 Mrd boe, einer Tagesproduktion von rund 324.000 boe und einer
jährlichen Raffineriekapazität von 26,4 Millionen Tonnen. OMV verfügt
nunmehr über 2.540 Tankstellen in 13 Ländern. Der Marktanteil des
Konzerns im Bereich R&M im Donauraum beträgt damit rund 20%.
Durch
den Erwerb von 34% an der Petrol Ofisi in 2006, Türkeis führendem
Unternehmen im Tankstellen- und Kundengeschäft, baute die OMV ihre
führende Position im europäischen Wachstumsgürtel weiter aus. Mit dem
OMV Future Energy Fund wurde im Juni 2006 eine eigene Gesellschaft
gegründet, die Projekte zu Erneuerbaren Energien mit mehr als EUR 100
Mio finanziell unterstützen wird. Damit will die OMV den Übergang von
einem reinen Erdöl- und Erdgaskonzern zu einem Energiekonzern
einleiten, der Erneuerbare Energien in seinem Portfolio hat. OMV
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) - Die
OMV hat sich mit ihrem Code of
Conduct zu klaren Werten verpflichtet
und übernimmt Verantwortung für Mensch und Umwelt vor allem in sozial
und wirtschaftlich sensiblen Regionen. Das Unternehmen setzt laufend
Schritte, um die wirtschaftliche, ökologische und soziale Dimension in
ihrem geschäftlichen Handeln, zu berücksichtigen. Die OMV berichtet
alle zwei Jahre in einem CSR Performance Report über ihre
entsprechenden Aktivitäten und orientiert sich an den international
gültigen Berichtsstandards der GRI - Global Reporting Initiative.
(English Version of this Article here)
Das Konzept der Sozialen
Verantwortung der Unternehmen - Mitteilung
der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat und den
Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss - Umsetzung der
Partnerschaft für Wachstum und Beschäftigung : Europa soll auf dem
Gebiet der sozialen Verantwortung der Unternehmen führend werden /*
KOM/2006/0136 endg. */: "1. Einleitung: "Soziale
Verantwortung der Unternehmen (Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR)
ist ein Konzept,
das den Unternehmen als Grundlage dient, um auf freiwilliger Basis
soziale und ökologische Belange in ihre Unternehmenstätigkeit und in
die Beziehungen zu den Stakeholdern zu integrieren[. Dabei
beschließen
die Unternehmen, über gesetzliche Mindestanforderungen und auf
tarifvertraglichen Regelungen beruhende Verpflichtungen hinauszugehen,
um gesellschaftlichen Notwendigkeiten Rechnung zu tragen. Indem sie
ihrer sozialen Verantwortung gerecht werden, können Unternehmen aller
Größen in Zusammenarbeit mit ihren Stakeholdern dazu beitragen, dass
wirtschaftliche, soziale und ökologische Zielsetzungen miteinander in
Einklang gebracht werden. CSR ist darum zu einem zunehmend wichtigen
Konzept sowohl
auf globaler Ebene als auch innerhalb der EU und zu einem Thema in der
Diskussion über Globalisierung, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit
geworden. In Europa spiegelt sich in der Förderung von CSR das
Bedürfnis wider, gemeinsame Werte zu verteidigen und den Sinn für
Solidarität und Zusammenhalt zu stärken..." mehr >>
When
word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no
accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:
'Where's
the nearest carrier?' " President
Bill Clinton, March 12, 1993 aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt
What
consequences would a nuclear war between Israel and Iran, or between
Pakistan and India, have for the world's climate? Scientists have now
created a computer model of what might happen. The results are alarming
-- even for experts.
Iran:
Consequences of a War. (February 2006).
This
briefing paper, written by Global Security Consultant,
Professor
Paul Rogers, provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of
US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran's
nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in
terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also
the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive. The
report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in
relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not
be considered further.
PDF
file in English or German - Executive Summary
+ Introduction in French
- Climate Change chapter
in Chinese.
HIROSHIMA + NAGASAKI remembered !!! On
August 6 and 9, 1945, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
destroyed by
the first US made atomic bombs used in warfare.
98 Minute BBC 4 Movie:
Inside Iran (02/15/07 )"Rageh
Omaar embarks on a unique journey inside what he describes as one of
the most misunderstood countries in the world, looking at the country
through the eyes of people rarely heard
- ordinary Iranians."
Campaign
Pushes for Iran Divestment
- 17.05.2007 - TIME - By Elaine Shannon/Washington An
unusual alliance of big-state Democrats and Iraq war hawks is
coalescing around a campaign to force European and Asian multinational
corporations to stop doing business with Iran, in order to pressure
Tehran over its nuclear program and its support for militants in Iraq,
Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The Iran
disinvestment
campaign is being marshaled by, among other groups, the conservative
American Enterprise Institute, an influential Washington think tank
whose experts laid much of the ideological groundwork for the U.S.
invasion of Iraq. The AEI
has identified dozens of energy companies active in Iran's oil and gas
fields and has also pointed a finger at such engineering,
transportation and communications giants such as Siemens,
Daimler-Chrysler and Volkswagen of Germany, Renault and Peugeot Citroen
of France, and Ericsson and Volvo of Sweden. "Money talks, and the
first line of attack has to be taxpayer subsidies for companies that
are investing in Iran," says
Danielle Pletka, AEI vice president for foreign and defense policy
studies. Pletka wants the White House and State Department to arm-twist
American allies to end state-funded subsidies that facilitate
commercial engagement with Iran. The Bush Administration has
resisted, preferring instead to use gentler arguments to build a broad
coalition that emphasizes diplomacy. "State
doesn't want to do anything," complains Pletka, a former adviser to
former Sen. Jesse Helms. "State is all about accommodation and trying
to sit down and have a Chamberlain-style peace with Iran." Although
they take a very different line from the AEI on Iraq, a
number of influential Democrats have lent their weight to similar
initiatives on Iran, out of concern for Israel. On Wednesday, Sen.
Barack Obama, the Illinois Democratic presidential hopeful and advocate
for withdrawing most U.S. forces from Iraq within a year, joined with
Democratic Congressmen Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Tom Lantos of
California to propose legislation that would encourage individual and
institutional investors, such as state pension funds, to dump stock
implicated in trade with Iran. "Pressuring companies to cut
their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that [U.N.]
sanctions have their intended result," Obama said in a statement
released by his office. A separate
bill by Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California would force the Bush
Administration to enforce
the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996,
which targets
companies that invest $20 million or more annually in Iran, focusing on
its energy sector. Sherman complains that the Bush Administration has
routinely waived punishments for big companies from friendly countries.Last
month State Department officials lodged a futile protest after Austrian
energy company OMV announced an $18 billion deal to exploit Iran's
South Pars gas field. "The Americans may refuse to invest in Iran's oil
industry," Austria's Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik told the Austrian
Die Presse newspaper. "But Austria is not bound by U.S. law." So
far, the Bush
Administration has been unwilling take more aggressive action against
European commercial concerns that trade openly with Iran,
and it won't endorse the
Obama-Frank or Sherman bill.
State Department officials don't relish a repeat of the "freedom fries"
confrontation with France and other European nations who opposed the
invasion of Iraq. "We've
been working
with the Europeans and others to put together and maintain this unity
and coalition to confront Iran, and that's achieved what we've gotten
in terms of the Security Council," says a senior State
Department official, referring to two U.N. Security Council sanctions
resolutions. "That's
what we want to build on, and this legislation is not helpful in those
efforts."
7/16/1996--Passed Senate
amended. Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of
1996 - Declares U.S. policy with respect to Iran and Libya. (Sec. 4)
Urges the President to commence diplomatic efforts with U.S. allies to
establish multilateral trade sanctions against Iran, including limiting
its development of petroleum resources, in order to end its ability to
support acts of international terrorism and efforts to develop or
acquire weapons of mass destruction. Requires the President to report
periodically to the appropriate congressional committees on the extent
of the success of such efforts. Authorizes the President to waive such
sanctions if certain requirements are met. Requires
the President to report to the appropriate congressional committees
with respect to the imposition of trade sanctions on persons doing
business or having investments in Iran or Libya by member states of the
European Union, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Israel, or Japan. (Sec. 5)
Directs the President to impose certain economic sanctions against
persons who with actual knowledge have: (1) made an investment of $40
million or more in any 12-month period that directly contributes to
Iran's or Libya's ability to develop its petroleum resources;
or (2)
exported to Libya any goods or technology prohibited by United Nations
Security Council Resolution 748, adopted March 31, 1992, or Resolution
883, adopted November 11, 1993, which significantly contributed to
Libya's ability to acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons,
develop petroleum resources, or maintain its aviation capabilities.
Specifies exceptions to trade sanctions, among other things, for
certain defense-related articles or services essential to U.S. national
security. (Sec. 6)Authorizes
the President, with respect to any sanctioned person, to: (1) direct
the Export-Import Bank not to approve issuance of any guarantee,
insurance, or credit extension for the export of goods or services to
any sanctioned person; (2) order the U.S. Government to deny licenses
or permits to a sanctioned person for the export of goods or
technology; and (3) prohibit loans from U.S. financial institutions.
Specifies sanctions that may be made against sanctioned persons that
are financial institutions. (Sec. 7)
Authorizes the Secretary of State, upon request, to issue an advisory
opinion to any person as to whether a proposed activity would be
subject to sanctions. (Sec. 8)
Waives the requirements of this Act if the President certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees that Iran has: (1) ceased its
efforts to develop or acquire a nuclear explosive device, chemical or
biological weapons, or ballistic missiles and missile launch
technology; and (2) been removed from the list of countries determined,
under the Export Administration Act of 1979, to have repeatedly
supported acts of international terrorism. Waives
the requirements of this Act with respect to Libya only if the
President, in addition to the waiver determination, certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees that Libya has fulfilled the
requirements of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 731,
adopted January 21, 1992, Resolution 748, adopted March 31, 1992, and
Resolution 883, adopted November 11, 1993. (Sec. 9)
Specifies circumstances in which the President may delay or waive
sanctions, conditioned on certification to the Congress of certain
facts. Prescribes a minimum two-year duration for sanctions. (Sec. 10)
Requires the President to report periodically to the appropriate
congressional committees on efforts to persuade other countries to: (1)
pressure Iran to cease its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile
weapons programs and support of international terrorism; and (2) ask
Iran to reduce the presence of Iranian diplomats and other personnel
and withdraw any of them who participated in the takeover of the U.S.
embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979. Requires such report also to
detail: (1) the extent to which the International Atomic Energy Agency
has established regular inspections of all nuclear facilities in Iran;
and (2) Iran's use of Iranian diplomats and representatives of other
government and military or quasi-governmental institutions of Iran to
promote acts of international terrorism or to develop Iran's nuclear,
chemical, biological, and missile weapons programs. Requires the
President to ensure continued reports to the Congress on Iran's: (1)
nuclear and other military capabilities; and (2) support for acts of
international terrorism. (Sec. 11) Declares
that determinations to impose sanctions under this Act are not
reviewable in any court.
Der "Iran Sanctions Act"
(ISA) sieht Sanktionen gegen ausländische
Unternehmen vor, die im Iran verstärkt investieren. Das Gesetz wurde
1996 unter dem damaligen US-Präsidenten Bill Clinton beschlossen,
damals betraf es Wirtschaftssanktionen gegen Unternehmen wegen
Geschäften mit dem Iran oder Libyen. 2006, nach Auslaufen der
Rechtsvorschrift wurde sie für Geschäfte mit dem Iran erneuert und
restriktiver gestaltet. Die USA wollen damit den Iran wirtschaftlich
isolieren. Bisher ist noch nie ein Unternehmen wegen dieses
Gesetzes mit Sanktionen belegt worden. US-Vertreter sehen darin eine
abschreckende Wirkung gegenüber Konzernen, die sich insbesondere im
iranischen Energiesektor engagieren wollen. (APA)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3107) to impose sanctions on persons exporting certain goods
or technology that would enhance Iran's ability to explore for,
extract, refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum resources, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as
follows:
Be it
enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Iran
and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996'.
SEC. 2.
FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The efforts of the Government of Iran to acquire weapons of
mass destruction and the means to deliver them and its support of acts
of international terrorism endanger the national security and foreign
policy interests of the United States and those countries with which
the United States shares common strategic and foreign policy
objectives.
(2) The objective of preventing the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and acts of international terrorism through
existing multilateral and bilateral initiatives requires additional
efforts to deny Iran the financial means to sustain its nuclear,
chemical, biological, and missile weapons programs.
(3) The Government of Iran uses its diplomatic facilities and
quasi-governmental institutions outside of Iran to promote acts of
international terrorism and assist its nuclear, chemical, biological,
and missile weapons programs.
(4) The failure of the Government of Libya to comply with
Resolutions 731, 748, and 883 of the Security Council of the United
Nations, its support of international terrorism, and its efforts to
acquire weapons of mass destruction constitute a threat to
international peace and security that endangers the national security
and foreign policy interests of the United States and those countries
with which it shares common strategic and foreign policy objectives.
SEC. 3.
DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(a) Policy With
Respect to Iran: The
Congress
declares that it is the policy of the United States to deny Iran the
ability to support acts of international terrorism and to fund the
development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the
means to deliver them by limiting the development of Iran's ability to
explore for, extract, refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum
resources of Iran.
(b) Policy With
Respect to Libya: The
Congress
further declares that it is the policy of the United States to seek
full compliance by Libya with its obligations under Resolutions 731,
748, and 883 of the Security Council of the United Nations, including
ending all support for acts of international terrorism and efforts to
develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction.
SEC. 4. MULTILATERAL REGIME.
(a) Multilateral
Negotiations: In
order to
further the objectives of section 3, the Congress urges the President
to commence immediately diplomatic efforts, both in appropriate
international fora such as the United Nations, and bilaterally with
allies of the United States, to establish a multilateral sanctions
regime against Iran, including provisions limiting the development of
petroleum resources, that will inhibit Iran's efforts to carry out
activities described in section 2.
(b) Reports to
Congress: The
President shall
report to the appropriate congressional committees, not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and periodically
thereafter, on the extent that diplomatic efforts described in
subsection (a) have been successful. Each report shall include--
(1) the countries that have agreed to undertake measures to
further the objectives of section 3 with respect to Iran, and a
description of those measures; and
(2) the countries that have not agreed to measures described
in paragraph (1), and, with respect to those countries, other measures
(in addition to that provided in subsection (d)) the President
recommends that the United States take to further the objectives of
section 3 with respect to Iran.
(c) Waiver: The President may waive the application of
section 5(a) with respect to nationals of a country if--
(1) that country has agreed to undertake substantial measures,
including economic sanctions, that will inhibit Iran's efforts to carry
out activities described in section 2 and information required by
subsection (b)(1) has been included in a report submitted under
subsection (b); and
(2) the President, at least 30 days before the waiver takes
effect, notifies the appropriate congressional committees of his
intention to exercise the waiver.
(d) Enhanced Sanction: (1) Sanction: With respect to nationals of
countries except those with respect to which the President has
exercised the waiver authority of subsection (c), at any time after the
first report is required to be submitted under subsection (b), section
5(a) shall be applied by substituting `$20,000,000' for `$40,000,000'
each place it appears, and by substituting `$5,000,000' for
`$10,000,000'.
(2) Report to
congress: The
President shall
report to the appropriate congressional committees any country with
respect to which paragraph (1) applies.
(e) Interim Report
on Multilateral Sanctions; Monitoring:
The President, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, shall report to the appropriate congressional committees
on--
(1) whether the member states of the European Union, the
Republic of Korea, Australia, Israel, or Japan have legislative or
administrative standards providing for the imposition of trade
sanctions on persons or their affiliates doing business or having
investments in Iran or Libya;
(2) the extent and duration of each instance of the application of such
sanctions; and
(3) the disposition of any decision with respect to such
sanctions by the World Trade Organization or its predecessor
organization.
SEC. 5. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.
(a) Sanctions
With Respect to Iran: Except as
provided in subsection (f), the President shall impose 2 or more of the
sanctions described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 6 if the
President determines that a person has, with actual knowledge, on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, made an investment of
$40,000,000 or more (or any combination of investments of at least
$10,000,000 each, which in the aggregate equals or exceeds $40,000,000
in any 12-month period), that directly and significantly contributed to
the enhancement of Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources of
Iran.
(b) Sanctions
With Respect to Libya: (1) Trigger
of Mandatory sanctions:
Except as
provided in subsection (f), the President shall impose 2 or more of the
sanctions described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 6 if the
President determines that a person has, with actual knowledge, on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, exported, transferred, or
otherwise provided to Libya any goods, services, technology, or other
items the provision of which is prohibited under paragraph 4(b) or 5 of
Resolution 748 of the Security Council of the United Nations, adopted
March 31, 1992, or under paragraph 5 or 6 of Resolution 883 of the
Security Council of the United Nations, adopted November 11, 1993, if
the provision of such items significantly and materially--
(A) contributed to Libya's ability to acquire chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons or destabilizing numbers and types of
advanced conventional weapons or enhanced Libya's military or
paramilitary capabilities;
(B) contributed to Libya's ability to develop its petroleum resources;
or
(C) contributed to Libya's ability to maintain its aviation
capabilities.
(2) Trigger of
discretionary sanctions:
Except
as provided in subsection (f), the President may impose 1 or more of
the sanctions described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 6 if
the President determines that a person has, with actual knowledge, on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act, made an investment of
$40,000,000 or more (or any combination of investments of at least
$10,000,000 each, which in the aggregate equals or exceeds $40,000,000
in any 12-month period), that directly and significantly contributed to
the enhancement of Libya's ability to develop its petroleum resources.
(c) Persons Against
Which the Sanctions Are To Be Imposed: The sanctions described in subsections (a)
and (b) shall be imposed on--
(1) any person the President determines has carried out the activities
described in subsection (a) or (b); and
(2) any person the President determines--
(A) is a successor entity to the person referred to in paragraph (1);
(B) is a parent or subsidiary of the person referred to in
paragraph (1) if that parent or subsidiary, with actual knowledge,
engaged in the activities referred to in paragraph (1); or
(C) is an affiliate of the person referred to in paragraph (1)
if that affiliate, with actual knowledge, engaged in the activities
referred to in paragraph (1) and if that affiliate is controlled in
fact by the person referred to in paragraph (1).
For
purposes of this Act, any person or entity described in this subsection
shall be referred to as a `sanctioned person'.
(d) Publication in
Federal Register: The
President shall cause to be published in the Federal Register a current
list of persons and entities on whom sanctions have been imposed under
this Act. The removal of persons or entities from, and the addition of
persons and entities to, the list, shall also be so published.
(e) Publication of
Projects: The
President shall
cause to be published in the Federal Register a list of all significant
projects which have been publicly tendered in the oil and gas sector in
Iran.
(f) Exceptions: The President shall not be required to
apply or maintain the sanctions under subsection (a) or (b)--
(1) in the case of procurement of defense articles or defense
services--
(A) under existing contracts or subcontracts, including the
exercise of options for production quantities to satisfy requirements
essential to the national security of the United States;
(B) if the President determines in writing that the person to
which the sanctions would otherwise be applied is a sole source
supplier of the defense articles or services, that the defense articles
or services are essential, and that alternative sources are not readily
or reasonably available; or
(C) if the President determines in writing that such articles
or services are essential to the national security under defense
coproduction agreements;
(2) in the case of procurement, to eligible products, as
defined in section 308(4) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19
U.S.C. 2518(4)), of any foreign country or instrumentality designated
under section 301(b)(1) of that Act (19 U.S.C. 2511(b)(1));
(3) to products, technology, or services provided under
contracts entered into before the date on which the President publishes
in the Federal Register the name of the person on whom the sanctions
are to be imposed;
(4) to--
(A) spare parts which are essential to United States products or
production;
(B) component parts, but not finished products, essential to United
States products or production; or
(C) routine servicing and maintenance of products, to the
extent that alternative sources are not readily or reasonably
available;
(6) to information and technology essential to United States products
or production; or
(7) to medicines, medical supplies, or other humanitarian items.SEC. 6.
DESCRIPTION OF SANCTIONS.
The sanctions to be imposed on a sanctioned person under section 5 are
as follows:
(1) Export-import
bank assistance for exports to sanctioned persons:
The President may direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States
not to give approval to the issuance of any guarantee, insurance,
extension of credit, or participation in the extension of credit in
connection with the export of any goods or services to any sanctioned
person.
(2) Export sanction: The President may order
the United States Government not to issue any specific license and not
to grant any other specific permission or authority to export any goods
or technology to a sanctioned person under--
(i) the Export Administration Act of 1979;
(ii) the Arms Export Control Act;
(iii) the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; or
(iv) any other statute that requires the prior review and
approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export
or re-export of goods or services.
(3) Loans from
United States financial institutions:
The United States Government may prohibit any United States financial
institution from making loans or providing credits to any sanctioned
person totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period unless
such person is engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the
loans or credits are provided for such activities.
(4) Prohibitions on
financial institutions:
The following prohibitions may be imposed against a sanctioned person
that is a financial institution:
(A) Prohibition on
designation as primary dealer:
Neither the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System nor the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York may designate, or permit the
continuation of any prior designation of, such financial institution as
a primary dealer in United States Government debt instruments.
(B) Prohibition on
service as a repository of government funds:
Such financial institution may not serve as agent of the United States
Government or serve as repository for United States Government funds.
The
imposition of either sanction under subparagraph (A) or (B)
shall be treated as 1 sanction for purposes of section 5, and the
imposition of both such sanctions shall be treated as 2 sanctions for
purposes of section 5.
(5) Procurement
sanction: The United
States
Government may not procure, or enter into any contract for the
procurement of, any goods or services from a sanctioned person.
(6) Additional
sanctions: The
President may
impose sanctions, as appropriate, to restrict imports with respect to a
sanctioned person, in accordance with the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 and following).
SEC. 7. ADVISORY OPINIONS.
The Secretary of State may, upon the request of any person, issue
an advisory opinion to that person as to whether a proposed activity by
that person would subject that person to sanctions under this Act. Any
person who relies in good faith on such an advisory opinion which
states that the proposed activity would not subject a person to such
sanctions, and any person who thereafter engages in such activity, will
not be made subject to such sanctions on account of such activity.
SEC. 8.
TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.
(a) Iran: The requirement under section 5(a) to
impose sanctions shall no longer have force or effect with respect to
Iran if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that Iran--
(1) has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, or
acquire--
(A) a nuclear explosive device or related materials and technology;
(B) chemical and biological weapons; and
(C) ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch technology; and
(2) has been removed from the list of countries the governments
of which have been determined, for purposes of section 6(j) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979, to have repeatedly provided support
for acts of international terrorism.
(b) Libya: The requirement under section 5(b) to
impose sanctions shall no longer have force or effect with respect to
Libya if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that Libya has fulfilled the requirements of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 731, adopted January 21,
1992, United Nations Security Council Resolution 748, adopted March 31,
1992, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 883, adopted
November 11, 1993.
SEC. 9. DURATION OF
SANCTIONS; PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
(a) Delay of Sanctions: (1) Consultations: If the President makes a
determination described in section 5(a) or 5(b) with respect to a
foreign person, the Congress urges the President to initiate
consultations immediately with the government with primary jurisdiction
over that foreign person with respect to the imposition of sanctions
under this Act.
(2) Actions by
government of jurisdiction:
In
order to pursue consultations under paragraph (1) with the government
concerned, the President may delay imposition of sanctions under this
Act for up to 90 days. Following such consultations, the President
shall immediately impose sanctions unless the President determines and
certifies to the Congress that the government has taken specific and
effective actions, including, as appropriate, the imposition of
appropriate penalties, to terminate the involvement of the foreign
person in the activities that resulted in the determination by the
President under section 5(a) or 5(b) concerning such person.
(3) Additional delay
in imposition of sanctions:
The President may delay the imposition of sanctions for up to an
additional 90 days if the President determines and certifies to the
Congress that the government with primary jurisdiction over the person
concerned is in the process of taking the actions described in
paragraph (2).
(4) Report to
congress: Not later
than 90
days after making a determination under section 5(a) or 5(b), the
President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the status of consultations with the appropriate foreign
government under this subsection, and the basis for any determination
under paragraph (3).
(b) Duration of
Sanctions: A sanction
imposed under section 5 shall remain in effect--
(1) for a period of not less than 2 years from the date on which it is
imposed; or
(2) until such time as the President determines and certifies
to the Congress that the person whose activities were the basis for
imposing the sanction is no longer engaging in such activities and that
the President has received reliable assurances that such person will
not knowingly engage in such activities in the future, except that such
sanction shall remain in effect for a period of at least 1 year.
(c) Presidential Waiver: (1) Authority: The President may waive the
requirement in section 5 to impose a sanction or sanctions on a person
described in section 5(c), and may waive the continued imposition of a
sanction or sanctions under subsection (b) of this section, 30 days or
more after the President determines and so reports to the appropriate
congressional committees that it is important to the national interest
of the United States to exercise such waiver authority.
(2) Contents of
report: Any report
under
paragraph (1) shall provide a specific and detailed rationale for the
determination under paragraph (1), including--
(A) a description of the conduct that resulted in the determination
under section 5(a) or (b), as the case may be;
(B) in the case of a foreign person, an explanation of the
efforts to secure the cooperation of the government with primary
jurisdiction over the sanctioned person to terminate or, as
appropriate, penalize the activities that resulted in the determination
under section 5(a) or (b), as the case may be;
(C) an estimate as to the significance--
(i) of the provision of the items described in section 5(a) to Iran's
ability to develop its petroleum resources, or
(ii) of the provision of the items described in section 5(b)(1)
to the abilities of Libya described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
section 5(b)(1), or of the investment described in section 5(b)(2) on
Libya's ability to develop its petroleum resources, as the case may be;
and
(D) a statement as to the response of the United States in the
event that the person concerned engages in other activities that would
be subject to section 5(a) or (b).
(3) Effect of report
on waiver: If the
President makes a report under paragraph (1) with respect to a waiver
of sanctions on a person described in section 5(c), sanctions need not
be imposed under section 5(a) or (b) on that person during the 30-day
period referred to in paragraph (1). SEC. 10.
REPORTS REQUIRED.
(a) Report on
Certain International Initiatives:
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and every 6 months thereafter, the President shall transmit a report to
the appropriate congressional committees describing--
(1) the efforts of the President to mount a multilateral
campaign to persuade all countries to pressure Iran to cease its
nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile weapons programs and its
support of acts of international terrorism;
(2) the efforts of the President to persuade other governments
to ask Iran to reduce the presence of Iranian diplomats and
representatives of other government and military or quasi-governmental
institutions of Iran and to withdraw any such diplomats or
representatives who participated in the takeover of the United States
embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, or the subsequent holding of
United States hostages for 444 days;
(3) the extent to which the International Atomic Energy Agency
has established regular inspections of all nuclear facilities in Iran,
including those presently under construction; and
(4) Iran's use of Iranian diplomats and representatives of
other government and military or quasi-governmental institutions of
Iran to promote acts of international terrorism or to develop or
sustain Iran's nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile weapons
programs.
(b) Other Reports: The President shall ensure the continued
transmittal to the Congress of reports describing--
(1) the nuclear and other military capabilities of Iran, as
required by section 601(a) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978
and section 1607 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1993; and
(2) the support provided by Iran for acts of international
terrorism, as part of the Department of State's annual report on
international terrorism.
SEC. 11.
DETERMINATIONS NOT REVIEWABLE.
A determination to impose sanctions under this Act shall not be
reviewable in any court.
SEC. 12.
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.
Nothing in this Act shall apply to any activities subject to the
reporting requirements of title V of the National Security Act of 1947.
SEC. 13.
EFFECTIVE DATE; SUNSET.
(a) Effective Date: This Act shall take effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Sunset: This Act shall cease to be effective on
the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 14.
DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Act of
international terrorism:
The term `act of international terrorism' means an act--
(A) which is violent or dangerous to human life and that is a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or
that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction
of the United States or any State; and
(B) which appears to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or
kidnapping.
(2) Appropriate
congressional committees:
The
term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on
Finance, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(3) Component part: The term `component part'
has the meaning given that term in section 11A(e)(1) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410a(e)(1)).
(4) Develop and
development: To
`develop', or
the `development' of, petroleum resources means the exploration for, or
the extraction, refining, or transportation by pipeline of, petroleum
resources.
(5) Financial
institution: The term
`financial institution' includes--
(A) a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(1) of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), including a branch or agency of a
foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of the International
Banking Act of 1978);
(B) a credit union;
(C) a securities firm, including a broker or dealer;
(D) an insurance company, including an agency or underwriter; and
(E) any other company that provides financial services.
(6) Finished product: The term `finished
product' has the meaning given that term in section 11A(e)(2) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410a(e)(2)).
(7) Foreign person: The term `foreign person' means--
(A) an individual who is not a United States person or an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence into the United States; or
(B) a corporation, partnership, or other nongovernmental entity which
is not a United States person.
(8) Goods and
technology: The terms
`goods'
and `technology' have the meanings given those terms in section 16 of
the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2415).
(9) Investment: The term `investment' means
any of the following activities if such activity is undertaken pursuant
to an agreement, or pursuant to the exercise of rights under such an
agreement, that is entered into with the Government of Iran or a
nongovenmental entity in Iran, or with the Government of Libya or a
nongovernmental entity in Libya, on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act:
(A) The entry into a contract that includes responsibility for
the development of petroleum resources located in Iran or Libya (as the
case may be), or the entry into a contract providing for the general
supervision and guarantee of another person's performance of such a
contract.
(B) The purchase of a share of ownership, including an equity interest,
in that development.
(C) The entry into a contract providing for the participation
in royalties, earnings, or profits in that development, without regard
to the form of the participation.
The
term `investment' does not include the entry into,
performance, or financing of a contract to sell or purchase goods,
services, or technology.
(10) Iran: The term `Iran' includes any agency or
instrumentality of Iran.
(11) Iranian
diplomats and representatives of other government and military or
quasi-governmental institutions of Iran:
The term `Iranian diplomats and representatives of other government and
military or quasi-governmental institutions of Iran' includes
employees, representatives, or affiliates of Iran's--
(A) Foreign Ministry;
(B) Ministry of Intelligence and Security;
(C) Revolutionary Guard Corps;
(D) Crusade for Reconstruction;
(E) Qods (Jerusalem) Forces;
(F) Interior Ministry;
(G) Foundation for the Oppressed and Disabled;
(H) Prophet's Foundation;
(I) June 5th Foundation;
(J) Martyr's Foundation;
(K) Islamic Propagation Organization; and
(L) Ministry of Islamic Guidance.
(12) Libya: The term `Libya' includes any agency or
instrumentality of Libya.
(13) Nuclear
explosive device: The
term
`nuclear explosive device' means any device, whether assembled or
disassembled, that is designed to produce an instantaneous release of
an amount of nuclear energy from special nuclear material (as defined
in section 11aa. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954) that is greater than
the amount of energy that would be released from the detonation of one
pound of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
(14) Person: The term `person' means--
(A) a natural person;
(B) a corporation, business association, partnership, society,
trust, any other nongovernmental entity, organization, or group, and
any governmental entity operating as a business enterprise; and
(C) any successor to any entity described in subparagraph (B).
(15) Petroleum
resources: The term
`petroleum resources' includes petroleum and natural gas resources.
(16) United States
or State: The term
`United
States' or `State' means the several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin
Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
(17) United States
person: The term
`United States person' means--
(A) a natural person who is a citizen of the United States or who owes
permanent allegiance to the United States; and
(B) a corporation or other legal entity which is organized
under the laws of the United States, any State or territory thereof, or
the District of Columbia, if natural persons described in subparagraph
(A) own, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the
outstanding capital stock or other beneficial interest in such legal
entity.
EU-OPEC
Energy Dialogue
Waiting for a Gas OPEC - 01/05/07 - Iran Daily
News Four years after the fall of Baghdad - which
for the neo-cons would signal the advent of the US as “the new OPEC“ - a
meeting in the tiny Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar may be signaling the birth of a new cartel: a “gas
OPEC“, grouping countries controlling 73% of the world’s gas reserves
and 42% of production. It’s not as simple as it
seems, because a gas
cartel along the lines of the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countriesis
above all a brilliant political idea - an astute exercise in (new)
branding.The
irony is that in this case the wealthy West - so keen on
branding when it comes to soft drinks and TVs - has been shaken to the core,
Atimes.com reported. Doha
could not be a more adequate venue for this crucial meeting of the
soon-to-be-rebranded Gas Exporting Countries Forum - an organization
founded in 2001. By
2008, Qatar will be the world’s premier supplier of liquefied natural
gas (LNG).
It already boasts the highest per capita income in the Middle East.
Official spin rules that the emirate is “carefully investing“ no less
than US$130 billion over the next five to seven years to build a
“dynamic and sustainable economy“. Iraqis about to be “liberated“ from
their oil wealth have every reason to be jealous, not to mention the
array of gas-deprived developing countries. Members
of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum include Algeria, Bolivia, Brunei,
Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Trinidad
and Tobago, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. Norway is an
observer. The founding fathers of the gas OPEC would be Russia, Iran,
Qatar, Venezuela and Algeria.All their political leaders are
in favor--from Vladimir Putin to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, from Hugo Chavez
to Abdelaziz Bouteflika. That’s
what sends shivers down the spines of the United States and the
European Union - testy Putin and favorite bogeymen du jour Chavez and
Ahmadinejad laying down the law in yet another powerful club. Russia
holds the world’s largest gas reserves (47.8 billion cubic meters),
followed by Iran (26.7 billion cubic meters) and Qatar (23.7 billion
cubic meters). But production is another matter. According to 2005 data, Russia controls no less than
21.6% of the world’s natural-gas production, well ahead of
Algeria (3.2%),
Iran (3.1%), Indonesia
(2.8%) and Malaysia
(2.2%). Russia
above all wants to become a huge global exporter: for the
moment it exports only a third of its production. Iran, incredible as it might
seem, imports more from Turkmenistan than it exports to Turkey
- because of investment problems. Like Russia, Iran’s aim is to become
a major global exporter. No
wonder Iran, with the world’s second-largest gas reserves and
desperately needing to export more, has vividly recommended to Russia
the creation of a gas OPEC. Unlike the oil market, in gas
matters there is no price coordination: prices are individually
negotiated - for as long as five years per contract - between buyer and
producer. Buyers - overwhelmingly from wealthy Western nations -
usually have the upper hand. A gas OPEC makes total sense for producing
countries in terms of a swift counterpunch to the West’s economic might. As
far as Iran is concerned, it’s strategically fundamental: it would open
the way for a much stronger presence in Asian and European markets, and
it would improve its security and power of dissuasion. To cut to the
chase: with Iran in a gas OPEC, no Western nation would dream of
supporting a US preemptive strike. Easier said
than done.
Qatar may be in favor but as it is in fact little other than a US
military base, Washington would never agree to its membership in a gas
cartel. Moreover, Qatar already ships a lot of LNG to the US. Even
before the meeting, Qatari Energy Minister Abdullah bin Hamad
al-Attiyah told Reuters in Abu Dhabi: “We do not see the need for the
creation of a gas organization because the issue of gas is more
complex.“ The Nezavissimaya Gazeta daily argues, “More
than 57% of the world’s gas reserves are concentrated in three
countries - Russia, Iran and Qatar.If these states create a cartel,
the gas OPEC will be easier to manage than the oil organization and
may in fact have the monopoly on the sector.“ Russia
and Iran united in a gas OPEC royally serves them both. Iran’s export
way out is first and foremost Asia. Russia wants to concentrate on
Europe. But the Europeans would do anything to diversify their sources,
so Iran, in the end, will also be the winner. Diplomats in
Brussels
never stop swearing that the EU’s ultimate fear is to become a hostage
to Russia’s energy policy. The alternative supplier is definitely Iran. One
thing is certain. Doha signals to the world that the Gas Exporting
Countries Forum is no longer a talking shop: now it really means
business. “Gas OPEC“, as a branding concept, is here to stay. It does
not matter that Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and Australia - which
combined sell 35% of the gas available in world markets - are not part
of it. The idea has been planted - and in this case the idea is far
more influential than concrete mechanisms to implement it. The
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, true to form, had to react with
extreme paranoia. Last November, NATO members were “warned“ that Russia
was fabricating a new, deadly political roadside bomb against Europe,
by trying to set up a natural-gas cartel from Algeria to Central
Asia. Welcome
to the new, Pentagon-inspired, arc of (gas) instability. Who would have
thought that branding could become so explosive? The EU
imports around 40% of its oil from theOrganisation of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC). High oil prices and
uncertainty in oil markets have been encouraged by growth in oil demand
and a reduction of spare capacity. In this context, the EU and OPEC have established
in the second half of 2004 a high-level
bilateral dialogue to enhance producer-consumer relations.
The EU aims at
a more stable international oil markets and prices, an attractive
investment climate, a more transparent market, a better market analysis
and forecasts as well as, technological and international
cooperation. OPEC’s
role is the coordination of petroleum policies, fair
prices for petroleum producers and efficient, economic, regular supply
to consuming nations and a fair return in capital to those investing in
the industry. A yearly meeting at ministerial level has been
programmed.
The
first EU-OPEC energy dialogue at ministerial level was held
on 9th June 2005. The main areas of discussion were oil prices, greater
data transparency on stocks and investment needs. A work programme for
the future was agreed to further develop these issues. The
second EU-OPEC energy dialogue at ministerial level was held
in December 2005 in Vienna. The tightness on the refining sector and
the financial markets were still two areas of main
concern. The
third EU-OPEC energy dialogue at ministerial level was held
on June 2006. It focused on new technologies, especially on the capture
and storage of carbon dioxide.
Krieg um jeden Preis? Die USA bereiten sich
weiterhin auf einen Waffengang gegen Iran vor
- Von Rainer Rupp - junge Welt, 22.Juni
2007 -
(veröffentlicht auch auf der Homepage der Uni Kassel, AG
Friedensforschung). Unter
dem Titel
"Naher und Mittlerer Osten. Krieg - Besatzung - Widerstand" erscheint
dieser Tage im Bonner Pahl-Rugenstein-Verlag ein von Nick Brauns und
Dimitri Tsalos herausgegebener Band zu politischen Problemen der Region
(209 S., brosch., 16,90 Euro, ISBN 978-3-89144-385-9). Zum ersten Mal
schreiben deutschsprachige Autoren und Vertreter palästinensischer,
libanesischer, irakischer und afghanischer Volksbewegungen in einem
Buch über einen politischen Großraum, der einer permanenten
imperialistischen Aggression ausgesetzt ist. Es handelt sich um die
überarbeiteten Beiträge zweier Konferenzen, die im Februar und März
2007 in Berlin und Chianciano/Italien zum Thema stattfanden. Wir
dokumentieren aus dem Band vorab Auszüge der Analyse Rainer Rupps zum
Thema "US-Strategien im arabisch-persischen Raum". [Dieser Beitrag
wurde in der "jungen Welt" veröffentlicht.] Viele
Indikatoren sprechen dafür, daß die Bush-Administration schon seit
langem immer wieder kurz davor stand, militärisch gegen Iran
loszuschlagen, sie sich aber aufgrund vielfacher interner und externer
Bedenken und Hindernisse nie zum Angriff hatte durchringen können. Anfang
des Jahres 2007 waren die bürgerlichen Medien voll mit Warnungen wie:
»Im Frühling sind die USA bereit zuzuschlagen.« Dabei wurde detailliert
über die amerikanischen Kriegsvorbereitungen berichtet. So wurde z. B.
in der britischen Tageszeitung The Guardian am 2. Februar 2007 der
ehemalige CIA-Direktor für Aufstandsbekämpfung Vincent Cannistraro
zitiert: »Die Ziele für
einen
Luftkrieg gegen die iranischen Atomanlagen sind bereits ausgesucht, und
die militärischen Mittel, um ihn durchzuführen, sind bereits in
Stellung gebracht. Wir planen den Krieg, und das ist unglaublich
gefährlich«. Trotz aller Dementis von
US-Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates schreite die US-Kriegsplanung
gegen Iran fort, so Cannistraro. In
der Tat waren bis Ende Februar auf Befehl von US-Präsident George W.
Bush zwei Flugzeugträger, die »Eisenhower« und die »John C. Stennis«,
mit ihren Begleitschiffen im Persischen Golf eingetroffen. Zugleich war
eine »Assault Group« (Angriffsgruppe) unter Führung des amphibischen
Kampfschiffes »Bataan« auf dem Weg in den Golf, wo bereits ein weiterer
Angriffsverband wartete. Bei einer Assault Group handelt
es sich
um je sieben Kriegsschiffe mit insgesamt 2200 US-Marineinfanteristen,
Kampfhubschraubern, senkrecht startenden Kampfbombern vom Typ »Harrier«
und anderem Gerät zur Erstürmung feindlicher Küsten. Üben für den Angriff
- Insgesamt
hatte Washington zu diesem Zeitpunkt etwa 50 Kriegsschiffe im und um
den Persischen Golf zusammengezogen. Auch britische Minensuchboote,
spezialisiert auf Operationen in flachen Gewässern, wie sie vor der
iranischen Küste und in der strategisch wichtigen Straße von Hormus
üblich sind, waren mit von der Partie. Hunderte US-Kampfflugzeuge
standen in der Region bereit: auf den Flugzeugträgern, auf der riesigen
US-Base in Katar, in Bahrain, auf den vier großen US-Luftstützpunkten
in Irak, auf Diego Garcia im Indischen Ozean und in Afghanistan. Sogar
auf der US-Basis Incirlik in der Türkei war Verstärkung eingetroffen,
obwohl die türkische Regierung bereits letztes Jahr erklärt hatte, daß
türkisches Territorium den USA für einen Angriff auf Iran nicht zur
Verfügung stehe. Laut
britischen Medien übten auch die Israelis bereits eifrig
Luftangriffe gegen Iran.
Dies wurde durch eine Nachricht aus Griechenland indirekt bestätigt.
Der Hintergrund ist, daß der Operationsradius der israelischen
Kampfjets nicht ausreicht, um ohne nachzutanken Iran zu bombardieren.
Die Betankung während des Fluges gehört jedoch nicht zur
Standardausbildung israelischer Piloten, die mit Ausnahme der
Zerstörung des irakischen Atomkraftwerkes Osirak im Jahre 1981 keine
Fernangriffe geflogen sind. Daher ließ es aufhorchen, als die zivile
griechische Luftüberwachung (FIR-Athen) am 5. Februar 2007 einen
Vorfall meldete, bei dem Dutzende nicht angemeldeter israelischer
Kampfjets beim Üben der Luftbetankung über dem Mittelmeer in den
griechischen Luftraum eingedrungen waren. Griechische
F-16-Abfangjäger identifizierten die israelische Luftflotte, die aus
sieben zu Tankern umgebauten israelischen Boeing 707, einem
Gulfstream-Jet zur elektronischen Kriegsführung und aus 25 F-16- und
F-15-Jagdbombern bestand, die alle mit dem Davidstern gekennzeichnet
waren. Der griechischen Meldung zufolge handelt es sich bereits um die
zweite derartige Übung innerhalb weniger Wochen. Alarmierende Meldungen
kamen auch aus Paris, wo Le Figaro unter Berufung auf französische
Militärexperten Mitte Februar berichtet hatte, daß Washington
inzwischen ausreichende militärische Mittel in der Golfregion
zusammengezogen habe, »um bis zu 40 Tage lang rund um die Uhr einen
Luftkrieg gegen Iran zu führen«. Laut Figaro will die
US-Satellitenaufklärung inzwischen 1500 Ziele ausgemacht haben, die
direkt oder indirekt mit Irans Atomprogramm in Verbindung stehen.
Allerdings dürfe niemand daran zweifeln, daß bei einem US-Angriff auch
zivile Ziele wie iranische Industrieanlagen und Ölinstallationen
erheblich beschädigt würden, so die Experten im Figaro. Wie
die US-Luftwaffe tatsächlich einen Angriff gegen Iran plant, darüber
gab Sam Gardner Auskunft, seines Zeichens Oberst a. D. der US-Airforce,
der jahrzehntelang für die Planung von Luftkriegen verantwortlich
gewesen war und in diesem Zusammenhang auch besondere Erfahrungen mit
dem »Ziel Iran« gesammelt hat. Auch Gardener war Mitte
Februar 2007 der Überzeugung, daß »die
Vorbereitung des Luftkrieges gegen Iran in vollem Gang«
war.
»Alles, was in den letzten Wochen geschehen ist, paßt zu dem, was wir
normalerweise tun, wenn wir Luftschläge vorbereiten. Niemand soll davon
ausgehen, daß wir Iran nicht angreifen, weil wir im Irak festsitzen«,
sagte Gardner, der eine Luftoperation »von ungeheurer
Zerstörungskraft« erwartete. Laut
Gardner hatte das Pentagon 1500 Ziele ausgewählt, die direkt mit dem
iranischen Atomprogramm zusammenhängen. Aber damit – so gab er zu
bedenken – werde sich ein Pentagon-Planer nicht begnügen, und er führte
aus: Iran habe z.B. zwei Anlagen zur Herstellung von
chemischen
Waffen, und da wären dann auch noch die Produktionsstätten der
ballistischen Raketen und ihre Lager. Außerdem gebe es 14 iranische
Luftwaffenbasen und die iranischen Kampfflugzeuge in ihren befestigten
Unterständen. Auch die »Bedrohung« für die Schiffahrt im Golf, d. h.
die iranischen Dieselunterseeboote und die Land-See-Raketen, müßte
ausgeschaltet werden. Ebenso die Munitionslager und die
Verkehrsknotenpunkte, die Brücken, die Befehls-Kommandostellen und
Kommunikationszentren, usw., usf. Und so kämen schnell 15000 bis 20000
Ziele zusammen. Aber nicht alle könnten aus der Luft zerstört werden.
Deshalb müßten Spezial-Bodentruppen eingesetzt werden; zur Zerstörung
tief unter Fels vergrabener Ziele hatte das Weiße Haus bereits im
Sommer 2006 ausdrücklich befohlen, den Einsatz von Mini-Atombomben in
die Planung mit einzubeziehen. Auf Eskalationskurs - Während
die Bush-Administration in der Region ihre militärische Schlagkraft
aufbaute, verschärfte sie zugleich mit einer Reihe von politischen
Provokationen die Spannungen zwischen Teheran und Washington, die der
Präsident mit seiner Rede
zur »Lage der Nation« Mitte Januar bereits kräftig angeheizt hatte.
Auf Befehl von Bush patrouillieren nun amerikanische Kampflugzeuge über
der irakisch-iranischen Grenze, angeblich mit dem Auftrag,
Waffenschmuggel zu verhindern und Verdächtige (!) – gegebenenfalls auch
auf iranischem Territorium – zu bekämpfen, was völkerrechtlich einem
kriegerischen Akt gleichkäme.
Laut
US-Medien sind die Piloten angewiesen, ihre Missionen »aggressiv« zu
fliegen, also konfrontativ, womit Grenzzwischenfälle geradezu
programmiert sind. Zugleich hat Bush befohlen,
angebliche
»iranische Agenten« in Irak zu jagen und zu töten. Diesem Befehl
vorangegangen war die Entführung hochrangiger Iraner, die mit
Diplomatenpaß auf Einladung des irakischen Präsidenten Talabani zu
sicherheitspolitischen Beratungen in den Irak gekommen waren. Sie waren
auf dem Rückweg von einem offiziellen Treffen mit der irakischen Seite
von einer Spezialtruppe der US-Besatzer gekidnappt worden. Erst nachdem
Talabani energisch gegen diese amerikanischen Gangstermethoden
protestiert hatte, wurden die irakischen Geiseln wieder freigelassen,
und sie konnten den Irak verlassen. (...) Weiter
angeheizt wurde die Lage Anfang Februar, als die US-Besatzer bei einer
Pressekonferenz in Bagdad mit manipulierten Beweisen Iran
beschuldigten, den irakischen Widerstand mit modernen Waffen zu
versorgen. Daher sei Iran
»mitschuldig am Tod von 170« US-Soldaten.
Bei dem Versuch, in Eile einen neuen Kriegsgrund zu schaffen, waren die
angeblichen »Beweise« jedoch zu offensichtlich manipuliert worden,
wodurch die »Beweisführung« unhaltbar wurde. (...) Trotz der
politischen und militärischen Eskalation, die viele Beobachter bereits
im Frühjahr 2007 einen US-Militärschlag gegen Iran erwarten ließ,
sprachen viele Indikatoren gegen einen bevorstehenden Angriff. Und das
nicht nur, weil Präsident Bush, seine Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice
und sein neuer, eher der Realpolitik von Bush senior zuneigender
Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates nicht müde wurden zu versichern, daß
es keinen Angriff geben werde. Zudem war Gates als Vertrauter von Bush
senior und Vertreter der alten, traditionellen republikanischen Linie
nach dem Rücktritt von Donald Rumsfeld gewissermaßen als Aufpasser von
George W. Bush geschickt worden. Daher war es kaum vorstellbar, daß
Gates mit der Unterstützung eines Angriffs gegen Iran einen noch
größeren Fehler machen würde als sein Vorgänger. Zudem hatte Gates
gemeinsam mit Zbigniew Brzezinski, dem ehemaligen Sicherheitsberater
von US-Präsident James Carter, Ende 2006 einen Bericht veröffentlicht,
in dem wegen der gefährlichen und nicht absehbaren Folgen für die
US-Interessen in der Region vor einem US-Angriff auf den Iran
nachdrücklich gewarnt worden war. Natürlich
– so wurde von Beobachtern argumentiert – hätte das Dementi der
Bush-Führung auch ein Bluff sein können, um das Überraschungsmoment zu
erhalten. Aber für einen gegen Iran gerichteten Bluff
dieser Art
gab es keinen Grund. Denn wegen des offensichtlichen US-Aufmarschs in
der Region war Teheran sowieso gewarnt, und der mögliche taktische
Vorteil eines Überraschungsangriffs war so bereits vergeben. Zudem
hatte die Bush-Administration schon im Fall Irak den Krieg angekündigt
und zu keinem Zeitpunkt ihre Angriffsabsichten dementiert. Wachsender
Widerstand Es
gab aber noch weitere Gründe, die gegen einen US-Krieg gegen Iran
sprachen. So hatte die demokratische Mehrheit im US-Kongreß eine
Bewegung in Gang gebracht, die Präsident Bush letztlich die Autorität
für den »Krieg gegen den globalen Terror« entziehen soll.
Zugleich haben die Demokraten Gesetze auf den Weg gebracht, auf deren
Grundlage die Gelder für den Krieg in Irak gekürzt und der Abzug der
US-Truppen erzwungen werden soll. Die Finanzierung eines neuen, vom
Kongreß abgelehnten Krieges gegen Iran wäre somit sehr problematisch
geworden. Von den vier US-amerikanischen Waffengattungen
Luftwaffe,
Marine, Bodentruppe und Marineinfanterie hatte sich Mitte 2006 nur die
Luftwaffe für einen Krieg gegen Iran ausgesprochen. Alle anderen haben
ihn als zu gefährlich abgelehnt. Insbesondere die Armee und die Marines
fürchten als Bodentruppen im Kriegsfall in verlustreiche Kämpfe
verwickelt zu werden. Mit ihren bereits jetzt überforderten Kräften
wären sie dort mit einem Kriegsschauplatz konfrontiert, der zwanzigmal
so groß und gefährlicher ist als derzeit das sogenannte Dreieck des
Todes im sunnitisch dominierten Teil des Irak. Und außer der
US-Luftwaffe vertraut niemand auf deren Fähigkeiten, einen Krieg allein
aus der Luft zu gewinnen. Daher ist der Widerstand gegen einen Krieg
gegen Iran in der militärischen Führungsspitze der USA sehr groß, nicht
zuletzt, weil Iran eine Reihe von Möglichkeiten der asymmetrischen
Kriegsführung zur Verfügung stehen, mit denen Teheran den US-Interessen
in der Region nicht nur empfindlich schaden könnte, sondern auch
schwere Opfer an US-Soldaten und Material abverlangen würde Widerstand
gegen einen Angriff auf Iran gab es indes auch auf seiten aller
europäischen Verbündeten Washingtons. Alle haben in der Vergangenheit
eindeutig erklärt, daß sie gegen eine militärische Lösung des
Konfliktes mit Iran sind. Zu einer Zeit, in der die Bush-Administration
mehr denn je auf internationale, insbesondere europäische Unterstützung
angewiesen ist, würde sie ein neuerlicher kriegerischer Alleingang
weltweit vollständig isolieren. Zumal die katastrophalen Auswirkungen
eines US-Angriffes für die Weltwirtschaft ausschließlich Washington zur
Last gelegt würden. Wenn
aber nach
Lage der Dinge ein tatsächlicher Angriff gegen Iran ausgeschlossen
scheint, warum hat Washington in der Region dann mit Flugzeugträgern
und Battle Groups wiederholt eine gefährliche Drohkulisse aufgebaut?
Das erste Mal geschah das im Oktober 2006 vor der ersten Entscheidung
im UN-Sicherheitsrat, ob Sanktionen gegen Iran verhängt werden sollten.
Auch der Aufbau der zweiten Drohkulisse im Februar 2007
fällt
zeitlich mit den Vorbereitungen zur Abstimmung im UN-Sicherheitsrat
über eine Verschärfung der Sanktionen gegen Iran zusammen. Daher liegt
die Erklärung nahe, daß mit den Drohkulissen weniger die Iraner als die
anderen Länder in dem Gremium beeinflußt werden sollten. Sie sollten –
wie 2003 im Fall Irak geschehen – davon ausgehen, daß Washington wieder
einen militärischen Alleingang unternähme, sollten sie den von den USA
geforderten scharfen Sanktionen nicht zustimmen. In Teheran hat man die
US-Drohkulissen im Golf als Teil von Washingtons psychologischer
Kriegsführung gesehen. (...) Ob
es sich bei der Drohkulisse, die von Israel aufgebaut wird, auch um
psychologische Kriegsführung handelt, darüber (geben offizielle
iranische Stellen – d. Red.) leider keine Auskunft. Nach
ihrem
verlorenen Krieg gegen die von Iran unterstützte Hisbollah im Libanon
im Sommer 2006 drängen die Hardliner der Olmert-Regierung Washington
mehr denn je zu einem Waffengang gegen Iran. Wiederholt hat Tel Aviv
inzwischen auch mit einem Alleingang gegen die iranischen Atomanlagen
gedroht. Dafür haben sowohl US-Präsident Bush als auch sein Vize Dick
Cheney, einer Ermunterung gleich, stets öffentlich Verständnis gezeigt.
Bereits Ende 2005 hat das Pentagon Israel 500 Spezialbomben geliefert,
die tief in den Fels eindringen und unterirdische Bunkeranlagen
zerstören können. Allerdings weiß bis heute niemand, wo genau am Ende
von kilometerlangen Tunneln die iranischen Atomanlagen verbunkert sind.
Zudem hat Teheran deutlich gemacht, daß es keinen Unterschied macht, ob
es von israelischen oder von US-amerikanischen Flugzeugen und Raketen
angegriffen wird. Iran würde auf jeden Fall zurückschlagen. Wehrhafter Iran - An
dieser Stelle nun einige Worte über die Stärke der iranischen
Streitkräfte und den Anteil Washingtons an deren ursprünglichem Aufbau.
Bereits zu Beginn des Kalten Krieges hatten die USA Iran zu einem
Bollwerk gegen die Sowjetunion aufgerüstet. In den Jahren 1947 bis
1965 erhielt Iran US-Militärhilfe in Höhe von 1,4 Milliarden US-Dollar
geschenkt. Von 1965 bis 1969 lieferten die USA Waffen nur noch zu
günstigen Krediten, und ab 1969 hatte man den Schah so weit, daß er den
Ölreichtum des Landes für modernste Waffen aus den USA verschwendete
und sogar das im Iran stationierte US-Militär mit fürstlichen Gehältern
entlohnte. Die
enormen
Ölpreiserhöhungen von 1974 führten dazu, daß Teherans Waffenkäufe in
den USA bis 1979 sprunghaft anstiegen. Insgesamt lieferten die USA nach
eigenen Angaben bis 1979 Rüstungsgüter im Wert von 10,7 Milliarden
Dollar, mit denen Iran zur stärksten Macht der Golfregion avancierte.
Zugleich beherbergte Iran die größte US-Militärmission in der Welt, mit
1500 US-Soldaten und 45000 militärischen »US-Zivilisten«. Sie alle
mußten nach Ayatollah Khomeinis islamischer Revolution 1979 fluchtartig
das Land verlassen. Im April 1980 brach Washington die
diplomatischen Beziehungen zu Teheran ab, womit auch die 1959
gegründete CENTO am Ende war, der »Zentrale Militärpakt« (Central
Treaty Organisation), dem neben den USA und Großbritannien die Türkei,
Pakistan und Iran angehörten. Bis heute haben die USA keine
diplomatische Vertretung in Teheran. Mit dem Verlust Irans ging auch
der Einfluß der USA in der Golfregion kontinuierlich zurück, bis dann
1991 der erste US-Krieg gegen Irak die Wende brachte. Mit dem zweiten
Irak-Krieg im Jahr 2003 und der Besetzung des Landes hatten sich die
US-Krieger im Irak eine ähnliche Entwicklung erhofft, wie sie zuvor im
Iran in den Jahren vor 1979 stattgefunden hatte. Da
die amerikanischen Waffensysteme im iranischen Arsenal lange Zeit
dominierten, war die Abhängigkeit von US-Ersatzteilen und -Technikern
enorm. Dadurch wurde das iranische Militär vom US-Embargo ab 1980 so
schwer getroffen, daß es sich bis heute noch nicht voll erholt hat.
Versuche, das US-Waffenembargo zu unterlaufen, gelangen nur teilweise.
Interessant, daß ausgerechnet Israel immer wieder eine wichtige Rolle
bei der Lieferung von militärischen US-Ersatzteilen an Iran gespielt
hat. Aber selbst
das Weiße Haus hat
lange Jahre die rigorose Embargopolitik des eigenen Außenministeriums
unterlaufen und über Israel 2008 moderne TOW-Panzerabwehrraketen und
235 Bausätze für Hawk-Luftabwehrraketen an Iran geliefert.Allerdings hat Teheran
auch vom siegreichen Vietnam US-Ersatzteile gekauft.
Aber all dies hat nicht ausgereicht, um die damals moderne,
hochgezüchtete Armee des Schahs instandzuhalten. Notgedrungen setzte
die Kannibalisierung der Waffensysteme ein, d. h. intakte Systeme
wurden zu Ersatzteillieferanten für andere Systeme. Hinzu kamen die
hohen Verlustraten im Irak-Iran-Krieg (1980–1988). Inzwischen
aber hat Iran in eigener Regie eine ganze Palette zielgenauer
ballistischer Kurz- und Mittelstreckenraketen den Streitkräften
zugeführt, mit denen es die US-Basen und regionalen
US-Kommandozentralen im ganzen Mittleren Osten, in Afghanistan und
Irak, im Golf und in der Türkei erreichen kann. Damit
nicht
genug. Iran ist eines der wenigen Länder, das schwere Panzer baut. Auch
in anderen Bereichen der militärischen Hochtechnologie hat das Land
beachtliche Fortschritte gemacht. Neben eigenen Entwicklungen von
tragbaren Panzer-Flugzeugabwehrraketen hat man auch in Rußland
modernste Militärtechnologie gekauft, u.a. die hochentwickelten
Thor-Flugabwehrsysteme, die inzwischen operationell sind und den
potentiellen US-Angreifern einiges Kopfzerbrechen bereiten dürften. Asymmetrischer Krieg - Außerdem
hat Teheran, wahrscheinlich mit Hilfe ehemaliger sowjetischer
Wissenschaftler, superschnelle Torpedos und Land-See-Raketen in seinem
Arsenal, vor denen selbst die US-Kriegsmarine im Persischen Golf
Respekt hat. Trotz
all dieser
beachtlichen Fortschritte sind die iranischen Streitkräfte jedoch für
das hochgerüstete Militär der US-Supermacht in einem konventionellen
Krieg kein ebenbürtiger Gegner, obwohl Washington im Kriegsfall mit
empfindlichen Verlusten rechnen müßte. Irans wahre militärische Stärke
liegt jedoch bei seinen vielfältigen Möglichkeiten der asymmetrischen
Kriegsführung, zumal die iranische Führung fest entschlossen ist, im
Falle eines US-Angriffs »den
Krieg ins Lager der Gegner zu tragen«,
womit auch die Mobilisierung und Unterstützung des Widerstands gegen
die US-Besatzer in Irak und Afghanistan gemeint sein dürfte. So ist man aus guten Gründen in
Washington an einem Bodenkrieg im Iran nicht interessiert.
Neokonservative Schreibtischstrategen wie Richard Perle argumentierten
statt dessen, daß »eine
Staffel von B-2-Bombern genügen würde, um in einer Nacht das iranische
Problem aus dem Weg zu räumen«. Doch wenn es zum Angriff
käme, dann wäre ein Landkrieg
in Iran für die USA nicht zu vermeiden. Zu lang und unübersichtlich
sind die Grenzen Irans mit Irak und Afghanistan, über die hinweg
Teherans Einheiten immer wieder gegen US-Truppen operieren und diese
nach und nach, mit verheerenden Konsequenzen, immer tiefer in den Iran
hineinziehen würden. Zugleich hätte Iran die
Möglichkeit, die
Straße von Hormus zu schließen, über die der größte Teil des Golföls in
die reichen Industrieländer des Westens und Japans gelangt. Zugleich
würden die entlang der Küste tief im Fels versteckten Raketenbatterien
eingesetzt werden, um den US-amerikanischen Schiffsverkehr lahmzulegen.
Von den über sechshundert kleinen Häfen entlang der Küste könnten
kleine Boote, mit superschnellen Torpedos ausgerüstet, Jagd auf
US-Kriegsschiffe machen. Um diese Gefahr zu vermeiden, wären die USA
gezwungen, mit Bodentruppen den Küstenstreifen zu erobern und zu
besetzen, um ihn dauerhaft kontrollieren zu können. Wenn US-Truppen
aber erst einmal auf iranischem Territorium sind, dann ist davon
auszugehen, daß sie ständig von kleinen Gruppen aus der Tiefe des
Landes angegriffen werden. Dagegen würden nur der Abzug oder die
Ausweitung des Krieges und der weitere Vorstoß ins Landesinnere helfen.
Um dies durchzustehen, müßte Washington jedoch zu Hause wieder die
politisch inakzeptable allgemeine Wehrpflicht einführen, denn das
Pentagon hat sich im Irak verausgabt und verfügt nicht mehr über
genügend Soldaten für eine mittlere Militäraktion in einem anderen Land. Als
eines der wichtigsten Mittel der asymmetrischen Abschreckung kann Iran
zudem auf eine einfache, aber höchst effiziente Verteidigungswaffe
zurückgreifen, die bereits der mächtigen Sowjetarmee in Afghanistan das
Rückgrat gebrochen hat: die tragbare, von der Schulter abgefeuerte
Flugabwehrrakete, im westlich-amerikanischen Militärjargon MANPAD
genannt. Irans Arsenale sind mit modernen russischen MANPADS gefüllt,
und seit kurzem stellt die iranische Rüstungsindustrie diese
anscheinend auch selbst her. Wenn Iran seine Arsenale öffnet und den
irakischen und afghanischen Widerstand mit Flugabwehrsystemen dieses
Typs versorgt, dann ist es mit der auf Hubschrauber und tieffliegende
Kampfjets gestützten militärischen Überlegenheit der US-Soldaten im
Operationsgebiet schnell vorbei. Und dann kann der Widerstand seinen
Vorteil ausspielen, nämlich seine lokalen Terrainkenntnisse, gepaart
mit hoher Mobilität. Ein Alptraumszenario für jeden US-Strategen, der
die Niederlage der Sowjetarmee in Afghanistan studiert hat. Vor
diesem Hintergrund ist verständlich, daß die militärische Führung im
Pentagon an einem Krieg mit Iran nicht interessiert ist. Für die
Neokonservativen in und außerhalb der Bush-Administration wird
inzwischen die Zeit knapp. Denn sie sind überzeugt, daß dieser Krieg
nur noch möglich ist, solange Bush im Amt ist. Dabei sind sich die
Neokonservativen durchaus des Schadens bewußt, den dieser Waffengang
gegen Iran Amerika und dem Rest der Welt zufügen würde. Aber die
Alternative dazu beschwören sie als noch schlimmer, denn – so ihr
Argument – wenn in zehn Jahren Iran die Atombombe habe, dann können die
USA nicht länger im Golf schalten und walten, wie sie wollen.
Mit der US-Dominanz in der Region sei es dann ein für alle mal vorbei.
Und das gleiche würde natürlich für Israel gelten, das sich nicht
länger auf sein Atombombenmonopol stützen könnte, um die benachbarten
Länder zu dominieren. Wenn
dagegen
jetzt – so das Kalkül der Hardliner in Washington – Krieg gegen Iran
geführt und das Land in die Steinzeit zurückgebombt wird, dann wäre das
zwar für Amerika verlustreich und würde weltweit zu einer
Wirtschaftskrise führen, aber von allen Ländern der Welt seien die USA
am besten in der Lage, die Verluste zu verwinden und die Krise zu
meistern. Und in zehn Jahren wäre die Krise überwunden; die USA würden
nicht nur den Golf, sondern den Größeren Mittleren Osten mehr denn je
dominieren, und der Status von Israel als unangefochtener regionaler
Supermacht wäre sicher wie nie zuvor.(SIEHE MEINE
INFO ÜBER DAS „Greater
Middle East Programm“ der USA +
Landkartedes
„Greater Middle East“ - ANMERKUNG
DR. SCHMIDT): *
Rainer Rupp arbeitete vom Januar 1977 bis zu seiner Verhaftung im Juli
1993 als DDR-Kundschafter unter dem Decknamen "Topas" in der
politischen Abteilung im Brüsseler Hauptquartier der NATO, wo er als
hoher Beamter angestellt war.
U.S. warships in Strait of Hormuz violating
Law of the Sea -
28/05/2007 - TEHRAN,
(MNA) “The deployment of three U.S. warships in the Persian
Gulf has increased insecurity in the region,”
former Iranian representative to the United Nations Disarmament
Commission Ali Khorram said here on Monday. “The vessels that
make
a passage are not allowed to conduct coercive measures against any
country or to undermine their sovereignty”, Khorram stated in a lecture
entitled “The Legal
Situation of the
Passage of Warships through the Strait of Hormuz and Their Presence in
the Persian Gulf and Their Effects on the Peace and Security in the
Region” delivered at the seventeenth “Persian Gulf Security and
International Law” conference.
Noting that the Persian Gulf is a completely demarcated and
closed region, the political analyst said that the innocent passage of vessels is allowed
granted that it does not threaten the security of coastal countries.Iran’s
strategy should be cooperation with regional countries, he added,
saying that any
violation of Iranian territorial waters is also a violation of the
territories of the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and other countries of
the region. Asserting that the U.S. warships in
the Strait of Hormuz are violating
the Third United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS III),
he explained that the
U.S. warships are passing through the water between Iranian islands and
not international waters, and their passage is neither an innocent nor
a transit passage. Dr. Ahmad Jalinusi of
Isfahan University also delivered a speech entitled “The Artificial Islands in the
Persian Gulf”.
The Persian Gulf region has long been subject to various
tensions, a significant proportion of which consist of territorial
disputes, he stated. “The
fact that 65 percent of the world’s oil reserves are located in this
region doubles the importance of such matters,” he added.
Pointing to the territorial
disputes between Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE,
he said that Iran-UAE relations have been tense for a while due to the
UAE’s claims of sovereignty over three Iranian islands. “The construction of artificial
islands in the Persian Gulf might turn into a threatening matter for
regional nations,” he observed, adding that Iran should seriously object to
this and prevent the implementation of the United Arab Emirates’ new
projects.
The
fire next time - The United States's response to its problems in Iraq
and Afghanistan could escalate into an Iran-centred regional crisis. By Paul
Rogers - 24/05/2007 (Paul Rogers
is professor of peace studies at Bradford University,
northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global
security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001.) The
extent of the United States predicament across the Middle East, and the
policies being introduced to meet it, is increasing the risk of a
crisis with Iran. The nature of the predicament is reflected in the
decision to send additional military personnel to Afghanistan as well
as Iraq, and in new priorities for equipment geared to
counterinsurgency. After
the current additional deployment of troops, US forces in Afghanistan
will exceed 25,500, at least 7,000 more than in 2005. Many of these
form part of the 34,000-strong International Security Assistance Force
(Isaf) force under Nato control, but others operate independently,
meaning that total foreign forces in the country now exceed 40,000 (see
"Troops Keep Comin' to Afghanistan", AFP, 10 May 2007). In
Iraq, too, it is now clear that the "surge" of the past three months is
set to last for up to a year, rather than the six months originally
anticipated (see "Iraq's cloudy horizon", 10
May 2007).
Current plans are likely to result in combat-troop numbers rising to
98,000 by the end of 2007. Adding in the support troops, the overall
total is expected to rise from the 162,000 now in Iraq to over 200,000
by January 2008 (see Stewart M Powell, "U.S. quietly, dramatically
increasing Iraq troop levels" Seattle-Post Intelligencer, 22 May 2007).
The result will be by far the largest US troop deployment in Iraq since
the start of the war in 2003, and comes at a time when National Public
Radio is reporting Pentagon plans to
maintain up to 40,000 troops in Iraq for many years - possibly several
decades.
The
compound, about the size of the Vatican, is the biggest U.S. embassy on
earth.
A
clear sign of the current strain in Iraq is the rise in the number of
detainees. In the first two months of the surge the numbers of
suspected insurgents in US custody in Iraq went up by 3,000 to 19,500,
with an even larger increase in those held in Iraqi prisons, camps,
police stations. The overall figure is nearing 40,000 (see Joshua
Partlow, "New Detainees Strain Iraq's Jails", Washington Post, 15 May 2007).
Furthermore, there are signs that sectarian killings - whose reduction
is one of the main aims of the surge - are again increasing (see
Sudarsan Raghavan, "Morgue Data Show Increase in Sectarian Killings in
Iraq", Washington Post, 24 May 2007). The
situation in Iraq and Afghanistan alike is illustrated too by the
changing military priorities of the US armed forces. The most urgent
requirement for the US air force is not a new bomber or fighter but a
new combat-rescue helicopter, because of the urgent need to be able to
evacuate the hundreds of troops being wounded every month on the
battlefield. For
the army, the urgent requirement is for new ambush-resistant vehicles.
The key programme here is the mine-resistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicle, first deployed in Afghanistan
in 2003 and in Iraq in 2004. The US military in Iraq has wanted
as many as 2,500 of these vehicles for a year or more but the intensity
of the insurgency and the experience of persistent ambushes have
transformed the requirement; the number requested has risen seven-fold
in a few months to 17,770, all to be supplied to the army within the
next two years, with another 3,700 for the marines. The total cost will
be well in excess of $20 billion. The Iran plan Over
all these developments looms the political timetable in Washington,
with the incipient campaign for the 2008 presidential election already
affecting policy. The most substantial change here is a sudden increase
in tension with Iran stemming from developments in both countries. The
Tehran administration is pointedly failing to comply with the
relatively modest requirements of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) inspections. The expiry on
23 May of the latest (two-month-long) UN Security Council deadline has
been met by Tehran's determination
to speed up the rate of uranium enrichment, even at the cost of less
cooperation with the IAEA. The latest report from the agency says that
the "level of knowledge of certain aspects of Iran's nuclear-related
activities has deteriorated" (see Karen de Young, "Iranian Defiance of
U.N. Detailed", Washington Post, 24 May 2007). A
further issue, not much publicised in Europe, is the continuing
detention of the American/Iranian scholar Haleh Esfandiari, a well
regarded academic and director of the Middle East Program at the
Smithsonian's Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
(see Rasool Nafisi, "Haleh
Esfandiari: Iran's cultural prison",
17 May 2007). She has now been charged with crimes against national
security and may be defended by 2003 Nobel peace laureate, Shirin
Ebadi.
Haleh Esfandiari's detention has provoked a sense of anger in
Washington that is not restricted to the traditional political right.
Moreover, it can be guaranteed to bring back memories of the 1979-81
American hostage crisis. If
the Ahmadinejad regime seems happy to play it hard, the same is
certainly true of Washington. Renewed calls for military action have
come from predictable voices such as John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz; though
the latter's Commentary essay is intransigent even by
his standards (see "The Case for Bombing Iran", Commentary, June 2007). In
any case, this kind of rhetoric is being matched by three further
developments. The first is
the reported presidential approval of covert
operations against Iranian financial interests by the CIA (see Brian
Ross and Richard Esposito, "Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against
Iran", ABC News, 22 May 2007). The
second is the welter of claims about increased Iranian interference in
Iraq, possibly involving a sudden surge in such activity in an attempt
to bring chaos to US security operations. Iran may well possess the
capability to do this, even though there is little evidence of any
current increase in interference, and independent analysts question the
extent of Iranian involvement (see the report by Jacob Halpin for the British American Security Information Council).
These doubts notwithstanding, there is evidence of widespread briefings
of journalists about the imminent Iranian threat (see Simon Tisdall,
"Tehran's secret plan", Guardian Weekly, 25 May 2007). The
third development is that the US navy has moved two complete
aircraft-carrier battle-groups from the Arabian Sea through the Straits
of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf. Nine warships and 17,000 personnel,
together with around 140 aircraft on the two carriers, moved through
the straits on 23 May
in a very unusual high-profile daytime passage. They will stay in the
Gulf for several weeks conducting exercises; these will include an
amphibious landing by 2,200 marines in Kuwait, apparently simulating a
response to a natural disaster (see Mohammed Abbas, "Nine Warships
Enter Gulf in Show of Force", Reuters, 23 May 2007). Be prepared To
sum up: the US position in Iraq is in trouble, with the surge failing
so far to deliver the expected results and a further expansion
therefore planned; reinforcements have had to be sent to Afghanistan;
meanwhile, the Iranian government is being particularly forceful and US
naval forces have moved into close proximity to Iran in the Persian
Gulf (see "The
Persian Gulf: a war of position", 8 February 2007). These
circumstances will not necessarily result in a tipping-point on the
other side of which is war, but at a time of pre-existing tension which
they in turn reinforce they do present particular dangers. These are
the circumstances in which there is a risk of unexpected events
developing rapidly into confrontation, even where the latter is not the
intended result. That is the situation the region and the world now
faces, and there is little indication that it will ease in the coming
weeks.
Twenty Reasons against Sanctions and
Military Intervention in Iran - 06/05/2007 - CASMII
INTRODUCTION After
four years since the US-UK led illegal invasion of Iraq, which
has brought the ongoing catastrophe for Iraqi people, all peace loving
people and antiwar organizations in the world are appalled by the
current Iran-US standoff that has a shocking resemblance to the run-up
to the invasion of Iraq. The same neo-conservatives and hawks, headed
by Dick Cheney in Washington, who championed the cause of invasion of
Iraq, are now shamelessly calling for a military attack on Iran. The
same Israeli lobby which pushed for the invasion of Iraq, is now
pushing for a military attack on Iran. The same strategy of lies and
distortions which was used to dupe the international community and
soften it up for the invasion of Iraq, is again used to pave the way
for another illegal pre-emptive war of aggression against Iran. As in
the case of Iraq, the UN Security Council Resolutions against Iran,
obtained by massive US pressure and coercion, would provide a veneer of
legitimacy for such an attack. Contrary to the myth
created by the western media, it is not Iran,
but the US and its European allies which are defying the overwhelming
majority of the international community, in that, they have resisted
the call to enter into direct, immediate and comprehensive negotiations
with Iran without any pre-conditions. The US and its European allies
show their lack of good faith in a diplomatic solution to the standoff
by demanding that Iran concede the main point of negotiations, namely,
suspension of enrichment of uranium which is Iran’s legitimate right
under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, before the negotiations actually
start. Here, we examine and debunk the common myths
and charges against
Iran and provide a list of twenty reasons to oppose sanctions and
military intervention in Iran. The Campaign Against Sanctions and
Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) calls for immediate and direct
negotiations between the US and Iran without any pre-conditions in
order to avert a new even more horrifying catastrophe in the Middle
East. Click [here]to
download the full paper in PDF format
Russia wants Iran to become more predictable
- 26/04/2007 - RIA Novosti - political commentator
Pyotr Goncharov -
Russian-Iranian relations are on the verge of a crisis, and not at all
because of the problems with the construction of the Bushehr nuclear
power plant, for which Moscow and Tehran are blaming each other. This
is rather a consequence. The reasons behind a cool-off are different.
Moscow has considerably hardened its stand on the Iranian nuclear
program in the UN Security Council. It has backed a resolution on
tougher sanctions against Iran in response to its refusal to stop all
uranium enrichment efforts. Judging by Tehran's reaction, it did not
expect Moscow to take this step despite its continuous appeals to
satisfy the Security Council demands and return to the negotiating
table. How will the imminent crisis affect Russian-Iranian relations?
These relations are only discussed in the context of bilateral
geopolitical interests and regional cooperation. It is the character of
these contacts based on identical interests and mutual dependence that
allows Tehran to talk about Russia and Iran as "strategic allies."
Moscow is more reserved and prefers to speak about regional "strategic
partnership." Historically, Russia and Iran have been good neighbors
and supported each other in the Caucasus, the Caspian region and
Central Asia. Their interests in these regions do not clash but
supplement each other. Here is an eloquent example. In recent time,
Iran has substantially escalated its economic expansion in Central
Asia. Russia welcomes this process in its traditional sphere of
interests. Unable to fully implement its interests in the whole region,
Russia hopes that Iran's growing presence will keep the United States,
Turkey and China away from Central Asia. Identity of interests is
particularly striking against the background of the U. S. attempts to
carry out a Greater
Central Asia Partnership for Cooperation and Development (GCAP).
Washington has included Afghanistan and Pakistan to Central Asia's
traditional states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan
and Kazakhstan. Whether the United States and Europe want it or not,
but this partnership is bound to oust Russia from the region in the
foreseeable future. The authors of the project want trade and various
economic projects to move southward and create an alternative to
Russia's monopoly on the exports of hydrocarbons, electricity, cotton,
etc. Thus, Iran, which has fallen from U.S. grace, is again becoming
Russia's ally in Afghanistan. As regards the Caspian region, Iran is
the only nation that fully shares Russia's position on the Caspian
Sea's international status, which completely rules out the presence of
any non-regional countries in the area. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and
Turkmenistan hold a different position on this main issue. Other
Caspian questions are not that important. The two countries pursue the
same policy in the Caucasus. Iran played a special role presiding over
the Organization
of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
at a time when the Kremlin's policy in Chechnya was in the worst
crisis. It was largely under Iran's pressure that the OIC reluctantly
agreed that Chechnya was Russia's domestic issue. It would be
surprising if Iran, a country with such a population, resources and
history, was not trying to occupy a befitting place in the region, a
place reflecting its political weight and potential. Iran's ambitions
are quite understandable, as well as its desire to turn from a passive
onlooker into a key regional player. While actively backing Iran's
involvement in the resolution of regional problems, Moscow does not
support expansion of strategic partnership to the entire Middle East,
as Tehran would like to see it. It is hard to imagine the circumstances
that would compel Moscow to support this. Russia would like Tehran to
conduct a more reasonable policy that would suit better the Arab
nations. Now Moscow should decide what it values more in its policy
towards Iran in the near future. On the one hand, Moscow is vitally
interested in a "strategic partnership" with Iran in Central Asia, the
Caucasus and the Caspian region; on the other, there is a real threat
to the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and the emergence of a nuclear
Iran, which would lead to a confrontation with the United States and
Arab nations in the Middle East. Most analysts believe that for all the
obvious allied potential of the two countries, a more moderate and
predictable Iran would be a better partner for Russia. The opinions
expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily
represent those of RIA Novosti.
Russian Roulette and the War on Iran:
Ulterior Motives of a Potential Iran War Profiteer— and Its Risks.(21/04/2007)
By Ali
Fathollah-Nejad - Global
Research A war on
Iran would be catastrophic.
That is certainly not a far-fetched estimation expressed by Russia’s
Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, on April 11. But Moscow’s former
Defense Minister is not the only one in his country suggesting an
imminent U.S. nuclear strike on Iran as the scenery for war has already
been set. Announcements made by leading Russian political and military
officials as well as experts and commentators during the last days on
the high probability of an American assault on Iran are, besides being
disturbing for Western ears, perfectly reflecting the highly critical
crossroads we are currently at. But is that ‘talk of war’ made in the
noble intention to prevent our world from a terrible, almost unique,
disaster—or are their tangible interests behind that? Signs
of a Russian Turnaround? It
is general belief that Iran and Russia form a stable strategic alliance
predominantly directed against U.S. global influence. Despite UN
sanctions put upon Tehran, Moscow insisted on continuing cooperation
with that country, especially in the much-disputed nuclear area. In
January 1995, Iran signed an $800 million contract with the Russian
Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) to complete nuclear reactors at its
Bushehr power-plant under IAEA safeguards. While the reactor’s
completion was scheduled for July 1999, countless postponements have
fixed the finalizing date to the end of this year. But despite
comprehensible frustration from the Iranian side as to this issue,
efforts directed at maintaining the Russo-Iranian partnership are have
not broken off. While Moscow was the only major global power condemning
the kidnapping of Iranian diplomats early this year in Northern Iraq,
it sharpened the tone as it considered Iran’s seizure of British spies
and its subsequent pursuit of its nuclear research activities despite
the latest Security Council resolution a ‘provocation.’ A major
commentator from Russia’s state news agency, RIA Novosti, even
concluded that it is Iran that is ‘provoking’ a war. A couple of days
later, the same praises to the skies Tehran’s adroit release of
London’s soldiers, thus preventing a possible U.S. attack on April 6.
Moscow’s state-run news agency was also the very first one to report
the immediate danger of a U.S. nuclear assault on Iran for this month.
But in recent days, it seems to backpedal while citing sources
assessing an American strike on Iran is not going to happen. But what
can we conclude from this potpourri of messages and reports echoing
from Moscow? Russia’s Secret Desires -
A
lot of evidence points to the fact that in the case of an Iran War,
Russia is most probably the only strategic beneficiary of such a
scenario. Of course, the United States’ decisive hold on the world’s
fossil energy center is destined to provide it with the most powerful
strategic leverage enabling Washington to prolong its global supremacy.
But assuming the continuity of the neoconservatives’ false—if not
amateurish—calculations of the outcomes of their foreign policy
initiatives and the evanescent probability of the U.S. remaining the
master of an unpredictable situation of a Middle East going up in
flames, the profiteer of such a bloody quagmire can be sought
elsewhere. The world’s great powers—i.e. the European Union, India,
China, and Japan—have nothing to gain, but much to loose from a war on
Iran, as all-time record oil prices will blatantly undermine their
highly oil-dependent economies. But Russia, an important oil-producing
nation itself, would not be disinclined when such a case turns real.
Being a major energy supplier for China and Europe, Moscow disposes
one-fourth of the world’s proved reserves of natural gas (before Iran
and Qatar) and six percent of petroleum. Therefore Russia’s role as an
indispensable energy supplier will be strengthened as a result of war,
moreover benefitting from increased world market prices for both
petroleum and gas. What is more, the recent Russian sales of military
defense systems to Iran, in particular, 29 TOR-M1 surface-to-air
missiles for alleged $700 million to $1 billion as well as Russian Navy
torpedoes of the type VA-111 Shkval (’Squall’), should enable Tehran to
considerably harm the U.S. when attacked—an outcome much desired by
Moscow as it would revive its superpower ambitions. And also during the
war, Russia could speed up its military exports to the Middle East. The
recent UN arms embargo on Iran could hardly prevent its military
industry from huge war-time profits. Besides these multi-billion dollar
businesses, Moscow can speculate about a geostrategic gain of
tremendous proportions. As it can be expected, an Iran War will
considerably weaken the aggressed (as a regional great power), but also
the aggressor (as the global superpower). The power vacuum then
produced in the whole Middle East region would be gladly filled by
Russia. Thus it could gain highly significant terrain in the
much-disputed Eurasian grand chessboard and pay back the geostrategic
losses it had to suffer in its ‘immediate neighborhood’—i.e. Central
Asia—in the wake of 9/11 through heavy U.S. militarization of former
Soviet nations. Risky
Roulette - But
all this does not mean that Russia will be able to occupy a calm seat
while making major economic and strategic gains from such a grueling
fight. As an all-out war is highly probable, Russia could hardly remain
for a long time a mere observer of a theater of war erupting at its
Southern flank. As Caspian Sea abutters (above all, Azerbaijan and
Georgia) might be roped in a war as they harbor U.S. military bases
from where strikes could be carried out, amalgamation with other
regional security issues in that geostrategically indispensable part of
the world involving Russia cannot be ruled out. In this light, Russia’s
interests in Transcaucasia and Central Asia can be jeopardized by U.S.
military actions emanating from there. There are signs that American
allies will get the green light to go for their interests in the
region, which are predominantly in contrast to Russian ones.
Washington, along with NATO, might seize the opportunity to further
reduce Russian influence in that region—a momentous blow to Moscow’s
global status. Briefly put, the enormous destabilizing effects from an
Iran War are not expected to halt on Iran’s Northern borders. With
Tehran under assault, Moscow will miss a reliable and stable status-quo
power on its Southern flank. The global consequences of an Iran War
will not exclude Russia. Moscow, too, will lose a promising power to
cooperate with in all perceivable economic fields and further pave the
way for extinguishing the unipolar world order. The ambitious plan to
create a gas cartel—unthinkable without the participation of the
Persian Gulf countries including Iran, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates (who express opposition to a ‘military option’ against Iran
realizing that they, too, might be targeted)— will also be harmed.
While it is true that Moscow does not wish a nuclear Iran, the prospect
of a total U.S. control over that region is more dangerous for its
interests in Eurasia. As Russia’s leading strategic thinker, General
Leonid Ivashov, holds, "it is hard to imagine a quiet heaven where one
might hide from the coming doom." The far-ranging consequences of an
Iran War cannot be calculated, therefore there are good reasons for
Moscow not to surrender to the blurred dream to come off as sole
winner. It is clear that by waging a nuclear war on Iran, Washington
will bear in mind its overall strategic goal to avoid any global rival,
of course paying special attention to the Eurasian heavyweight Russia.
And it has every means to do that, as its military is well anchored in
parts critical to Moscow. After all, it remains to Russia’s strategic
reflections whether to engage with or distance itself from Iran. The
latter, coupled with the belief that war profits will exceed peace-time
opportunities, can decisively lower the international hurdle to wage a
war on Iran. However, one certitude remains: "After the very first
nuclear blast, mankind will find itself in an entirely new world, an
absolutely inhumane one." (L. Ivashov) Ali Fathollah-Nejad is
researcher of the Middle East based in Germany. He is the author of a
detailed study on the Iran crisis entitled Iran in the Eye of Storm –
Why a Global War Has Begun (pdf). ali_fna@yahoo.de
Nuclear
Power Will Not Play Major Near-Term Role in Countering Climate Change,
Concludes New Council Report. (18/04/2007)
By Charles D. Ferguson, Fellow for
Science and Technology - Council on Foreign
Relations Nuclear
energy is unlikely to play a major role in the coming decades in
countering the harmful effects of climate change or in strengthening
energy security, concludes a new Council Special Report authored by
Charles D. Ferguson, Council fellow for science and technology.
To significantly combat climate change in the near term, the “nuclear
industry would have to expand at such a rapid rate as to pose serious
concerns for how the industry would ensure an adequate supply of
reasonably inexpensive reactor-grade construction materials,
well-trained technicians, and rigorous safety and security measures,”
says the report. There are currently 103 nuclear reactors operating in
the United States. Even with twenty-year extensions of their planned
lifespan, all existing reactors will likely need to be decommissioned
by the middle of the century. To replace them, the United States would
have to build a new reactor every four
to five months over the next forty years. “However, based on the past
thirty years, in which reactor orders and construction ground to a
halt, this replacement rate faces daunting challenges. For this reason
alone, nuclear energy is not a major part of the solution to U.S.
energyinsecurity for at least the next fifty years,” says the report, Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks. Ferguson
also argues against the United States increasing funding and subsidies
for nuclear energy. While it is true that nuclear energy emits fewer
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the conventional wisdom
“oversells the contribution nuclear energy can make to reduce global
warming and strengthen energy security while downplaying the dangers
associated with this energy source,” he says. The
report further warns that “the United States and its partners face the
daunting challenge of preventing the diversion of nuclear explosive
materials into weapons programs and controlling the spread of
potentially dangerous nuclear fuel-making technologies and materials.”
Nuclear waste is a particular cause for concern. “If nuclear power
production expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of
waste requiring safe and secure disposal will also significantly
increase,” says Ferguson, noting that “no country has begun to store
waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories.” Nonetheless,
because “nuclear energy produces one-fifth of U.S. electricity and
one-sixth of global electricity…the United States and its partners have
a vested interest in ensuring safe and secure operation of the world’s
nuclear industry,” says the report. Ferguson outlines steps the United States could
take to level the economic playing field for all energy sectors, which,
over the long run, would
encourage the construction of new nuclear reactors (if
only to replace existing ones that will need to be retired) and help reduce global warming. Among
the recommendations:
* “The United States should impose a fee on greenhouse gas emissions to
leverage market forces in order to counter global warming.”
* “Industry should devote adequate resources to cover safety and
security costs.”
* “To complement the safety assessments done by the World Association
of Nuclear Operators, the nuclear industry in all advanced countries
should set up a fund that would support developing best regulatory
practices for both safety and security in all countries that use or
want to use nuclear power.”
* “To further improve security, the nuclear industry should transfer as
much spent fuel as possible into dry storage casks that are hardened
against attack while the United States moves forward with development
of a permanent nuclear waste repository.” Internationally,
“the United States should work with partner governments to develop and
implement rules that would apply equally to all countries and, thus,
would move toward a less discriminatory nonproliferation system.” Such
rules could include:
* “Requiring any country in noncompliance with safeguards commitments
to suspend suspect activities until the problem is resolved.”
* “Encouraging any country seeking a nuclear fuel facility to consider
the economic soundness of this activity before building the facility.
An economic test would be whether the proposed nuclear project could
secure financing by private capital.
* “Urging any country wanting to develop nuclear power programs to
factor in all environmental, safety, and security costs as compared to
other energy sources; to support these assessments, the IAEA and the
International Energy Agency could work together to provide
comprehensive energy analysis for any country, including all costs for
each energy source.”
* “Offering assured access to nuclear fuel based on competitive market
prices as long as a country meets rigorous safeguards criteria and can
secure private financial support for its civilian nuclear program.” The
report was produced in partnership with Washington and Lee University
and was funded, in part, by generous support of the Lenfest Foundation.
Additional funding was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New
York, the Richard Lounsbery Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation. Nuclear
Energy - Balancing Benefits and Risks. Report
by Charles D.
Ferguson, Fellow for Science and Technology - Council on Foreign
Relations (April 2007) 56 pages - ISBN 978-0-87609-400-6
(0-87609-400-0) - Council Special Report No. 28 DOWNLOAD
THE FULL REPORT HERE (270K
PDF)
Strange
victory. By Rageh Omaar- NewStatesman - (16/04/2007) The original gamble was born of
weakness. But thanks to British errors, Iran has got more than it was
hoping for. It has been the strangest and most unexpected of
victories for Iran. The abduction of the 15 British sailors began as a
gamble brought on by desperation. In February, two US battle groups had
taken up position in the Persian Gulf. President Bush's "troop surge"
was under way, its aim to pacify Baghdad and undercut political groups
and militias supported by Tehran. Then US forces pounced on two Iranian
diplomats while they were on an official visit to Iraqi Kurdistan as
guests of local politicians. Although this attempt failed, five other
Iranian diplomats had been seized the previous month in Erbil. Even the
protests of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, had little effect.
Iran looked weak. Its image as the power-broker in Iraq and across the
region was being challenged.
The Iranians had no bargaining chips. So they went out and
grabbed some, in the form of the British sailors. Two weeks later, as
the naval personnel were released, what was the result? Iran had won a
globally televised propaganda battle, an apparent superiority enhanced
by the unedifying spectacle of the sailors selling their stories to the
press. Britain had been isolated in its attempts to persuade the United
Nations to condemn Tehran's actions. A surprise diplomatic dividend for
Tehran was the divisions exposed between London and Washington over the
handling of the crisis.
In the first week of the drama, Tony Blair had one of his
characteristic rushes of blood and assumed that the Iranian regime
could be intimidated into giving up its adventure if he gave it a bit
of megaphone diplomacy, spiced with statements of shock and outrage.
The Foreign Office quickly realised this was getting nowhere and that
it had no option other than the one offered by Tehran - quiet diplomacy
between equals, rather than Blair's method of master shouting at
subordinate. But the United States, as has so often been the case with
its policy towards Iraq and Iran, had its own agenda. In a move that
showed not only a different outlook, but also an indifference to their
allies, US military commanders in the Gulf said that if American
sailors had been seized by the Iranians, they would have fought back.
The impact in the Gulf among oil-rich Arab monarchies has
been disastrous. These vulnerable but important allies are dependent on
the military strength of the UK and the US and the diplomatic
credibility of their western protectors. States such as Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia and Bahrain (all of which have pol itically restive Shia
populations) have watched in alarm since the Iraq invasion as the
demise of US authority in the region takes place simultaneously with
the rise of Iranian influence. Now Britain, too, has been made to look
weak and ineffective.
In the eyes of Gulf monarchies, having warships sailing up
and down Iran's coastline is one thing, but having the diplomatic
credibility to back up that force is quite another. Although the Royal
Navy says the unannounced searches in the Gulf of boats suspected of
smuggling will continue, I doubt they will. The marines will go through
the motions, and who can blame them? Is the navy really going to risk a
rerun of the crisis, knowing that next time Tehran is unlikely to be so
magnanimous? Again, to a regional audience, this looks like Britain
being brought down a peg or two.
The public reaction in many of the Gulf states has been
different from the private but frank comments made by Gulf officials to
western journalists. Fear and resentment of the growing power of Persian Iran is
a sentiment that Arab rulers feel far more acutely than Arab citizens.
Like it or not, Hamas
and Hezbollah have widespread support among ordinary
people in the Arab world, and the only country that is aiding these
organisations is Iran. This, more than any other factor, is what gives
Tehran support in the Arab street ahead of most Arab governments.
As a result, considerable parts of public opinion in the Gulf
and the rest of the Arab world view Iran as having been unfairly
bullied in its own backyard by British and American warships, UK and US
troops aggressively boarding ships in the Persian Gulf and humiliating
a regional power. For that same reason, these people saw the seizure of
the British sailors as the west getting a dose of its own medicine.
This matters, because once again, as happened last year during the war
between Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah, Iran has widened and exploited
the difference in sentiment between the Arab street and Arab rulers.
The crisis need not have ended this way. That it did must be
explained in part by a fundamental misreading in Britain of Iranian
politics. UK policy-makers work from the clichéd assumption that Iran
is run by its maverick president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the British
press, the entire Iranian state is personified in Ahmadinejad. This
both frustrates and amuses Iranian commentators and politicians
(especially those vehemently opposed to the president).
In this sense, Ahmadinejad has become a very useful foil for
the men who really control Iran: the National Security Council, which
is presided over by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the
secretary to the council, Ali Larijani, Iran's chief negotiator in all
key areas, including nuclear talks. It was Larijani who led
negotiations with the UK over the abducted sailors. The diplomatic
communiqué sent to Blair and to Margaret Beckett, the Foreign
Secretary, was from him, not Ahmadinejad. But the Iranian president is
nothing if not a born performer and he provides good copy for
journalists, which is why the only time we heard from him during the
entire affair was at the very end, when he held the press conference to
announce the sailors' release.
This essential failure of British analysis has played into Tehran's
hands. The irony is that this latest incident bolstered Ahmadinejad's
position just at a time when economic failings had severely dented his
popularity at home. This feat was something that many of his fierce
critics in Iran's parliament had thought impossible. Perfidious Albion
- As a British citizen, I find it impossible not to be struck by how
deep and abiding is Britain's historical image as a duplicitous power
eager to exploit Iran. One of the defining moments of Iranian modern
history is the overthrow of the democratically elected secular leader
Muhammed Mossadeq in a CIA-backed
coup in 1953. What every Iranian is still taught and
remembers, however, is that the coup was conceived and driven by the
UK, which dragged the United States into the plan as a way of
protecting Britain's oil assets in the country. Today, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad struts the stage, knowing that in the eyes of his people he
has taught the old enemy, Perfidious Albion, a lesson.
The Iranian government entered into this crisis hoping at
best for the eventual release of its junior diplomats from US custody.
Instead, it has emerged with a string of benefits - greater prestige in
the region than it has enjoyed for years; victory for the principle
that it is better to negotiate than to threaten; divisions at the UN,
and differences between the UK and the US. Part of this is a natural
reflection of Iran's true influence in the Middle East, but it is also
the product of Blair's mistaken approach to Tehran. The result? Now
that Iran has claimed it can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial
scale, I wonder who will be looking forward more to the next round of
negotiations: Tehran or London.
Iran may be the greatest crisis of modern
times-
(14/04/2007) - - PressTV - By John
Pilger The
Israeli journalist Amira Hass describes the moment her mother, Hannah,
was marched from a cattle train to the Nazi concentration camp at
Bergen-Belsen. "They
were sick and some were dying," she says. "Then my
mother saw these German women looking at the prisoners, just looking.
This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable
‘looking from the side'." It is time we in Britain and
other Western
countries stopped looking from the side. We are being led towards
perhaps the most serious crisis in modern history as the
Bush-Cheney-Blair "long war" edges closer to Iran for no reason other
than that nation's independence from rapacious America.
The safe
delivery of the 15 British sailors into the hands of Rupert Murdoch and
his rivals (with tales of their "ordeal" almost certainly authored by
the Ministry of Defense – until it got the wind up) is both a farce and
a distraction. The Bush administration, in secret connivance with
Blair, has spent four years preparing for "Operation Iranian Freedom."
Forty-five cruise missiles are primed to strike. According to Russia's
leading strategic thinker General Leonid Ivashov: "Nuclear facilities
will be secondary targets... at least 20 such facilities need to be
destroyed. Combat nuclear weapons may be used. This will result in the
radioactive contamination of all the Iranian territory, and beyond."
One million Iraqis fill the streets of Najaf demanding that Bush and
Blair get out of their homeland – that is the real news: not our nabbed
sailor-spies, nor the political danse macabre of the pretenders to
Blair's Duce delusions. Whether it is treasurer Gordon Brown, the
paymaster of the Iraq bloodbath, or John Reid, who sent British troops
to pointless deaths in Afghanistan, or any of the others who sat
through cabinet meetings knowing that Blair and his acolytes were lying
through their teeth, only mutual distrust separates them now. They knew
about Blair's plotting with Bush. They knew about the fake 45-minute
"warning." They knew about the fitting up of Iran as the next "enemy."
Declared Brown to the Daily Mail: "The days of Britain having to
apologize for its colonial history are over. We should celebrate much
of our past rather than apologize for it." In Late Victorian
Holocausts, the historian Mike Davis documents that as many as 21
million Indians died unnecessarily in famines criminally imposed by
British colonial policies. Moreover, since the formal
demise of that
glorious imperium, declassified files make it clear that British
governments have borne "significant responsibility" for the direct or
indirect deaths of between 8.6 million and 13.5 million people
throughout the world from military interventions and at the hands of
regimes strongly supported by Britain. The historian Mark Curtis calls
these victims "unpeople." Rejoice! said Margaret Thatcher.
Celebrate!
says Brown. Spot the difference. Brown is no different from Hillary
Clinton, John Edwards and the other warmongering Democrats he admires
and who support an unprovoked attack on Iran and the subjugation of the
Middle East to "our interests" – and Israel's, of course. Nothing has
changed since the US and Britain destroyed Iran's democratic government in
1953 and installed Reza Shah Pahlavi,whose regime had"the highest rate of
death penalties in the world, no
valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture" that was
"beyond belief" (Amnesty International). Look behind the
one-way moral
screen and you will distinguish the Blairite elite by its loathing of
the humane principles that mark a real democracy. They used to be
discreet about this, but no more. Two examples spring to mind. In 2004,
Blair used the secretive "royal prerogative" to overturn a high court
judgment that had restored the very principle of human rights set out
in Magna Carta to the people of the Chagos Islands, a British colony in
the Indian Ocean. There was no debate. As ruthless as any
dictator,
Blair dealt his coup de grâce with the lawless expulsion of the
islanders from their homeland, now a US military base, from which Bush
has bombed Iraq
and Afghanistan and will bomb Iran. In
the second example, only the degree of suffering is different. Last
October, the Lancet
published research by Johns Hopkins University in
the US and al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad which calculated
that655,000
Iraqis
had died as a direct result of the Anglo-American invasion. Downing
Street officials derided the study as "flawed." They were lying. They
knew that the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defense, Sir
Roy Anderson, had backed the survey, describing its methods as "robust"
and "close to best practice," and other government officials had
secretly approved the "tried and tested way of measuring mortality in
conflict zones." The figure for Iraqi deaths is now estimated at close to a million – carnage
equivalent to that caused by the Anglo-American economic siege of Iraq
in the 1990s, which produced the deaths of half a million infants under
the age of five, verified by Unicef. That, too, was dismissed
contemptuously by Blair. "This
Labour government, which includes Gordon Brown as much as it does Tony
Blair," wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, "is party to awar
crime of monstrous proportions. Yet our political consensus prevents
any judicial or civil society response. Britain is paralyzed by its own
indifference. "
Such is the scale of the crime and of our "looking from the side."
According to the Observer of 8 April, the voters' "damning verdict" on
the Blair regime is expressed by a majority who have "lost faith" in
their government. No surprise there. Polls have long shown a widespread
revulsion to Blair, demonstrated at the last general election, which
produced the second lowest turnout since the franchise. No mention was
made of the Observer's own contribution to this national loss of faith.
Once celebrated as a bastion of liberalism that stood against Anthony
Eden's lawless attack on Egypt in 1956, the new right-wing, lifestyle
Observer enthusiastically backed Blair's lawless attack on Iraq, having
helped lay the ground with major articles falsely linking Iraq with the
9/11 attacks – claims now regarded even by the Pentagon as fake. As
hysteria is again fabricated, for Iraq, read Iran. According
to the former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the Bush cabal decided to attack Iraq on
"day one" of Bush's administration, long before 11 September 2001.
The main reason was oil.
O'Neill was shown a Pentagon document entitled "Foreign
Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,"
which outlined the carve-up of Iraq's oil wealth among the major
Anglo-American companies. Under a law written by US and British
officials, the Iraqi puppet regime is about to hand over the extraction
of the largest concentration of oil on earth to Anglo-American
companies. Nothing like this piracy has happened before in the modern
Middle East, where OPEC has ensured that oil business is conducted
between states. Across the Shatt
al-Arab waterway is another prize: Iran's vast oilfields. Just as
nonexistent weapons of mass destruction or facile concerns for
democracy had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, so nonexistent
nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the coming American onslaught
on Iran. Unlike
Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of
which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections
under its legal obligations. The
International Atomic Energy Agency has never cited Iran for diverting
its civilian program to military use. For the past three years, IAEA
inspectors have said they have been allowed to "go anywhere." The
recent UN Security Council sanctions against Iran are the result of
Washington's bribery.
Until recently, the British were unaware
that their government was one of the world's most consistent abusers of
human rights and backers of state terrorism. Few Britons knew that the
Muslim Brotherhood, the forerunner of al-Qaeda, was sponsored by
British intelligence as a means of systematically destroying secular
Arab nationalism, or that MI6 recruited young British Muslims in the
1980s as part of a $4bn Anglo-American-backed jihad against the Soviet
Union known as"Operation Cyclone."In 2001, few
Britons knew that
3,000 innocent Afghan civilians were bombed to death as revenge for the
attacks of 11 September. No Afghans brought down the twin towers.
Thanks to Bush and Blair, awareness in Britain and all over the world
has risen as never before. When homegrown terrorists struck London in
July 2005, few doubted that the attack on Iraq had provoked the
atrocity and that the bombs which killed 52 Londoners were, in effect,
Blair's bombs. In my experience, most people do not indulge the
absurdity and cruelty of the "rules" of rampant power. They do not
contort their morality and intellect to comply with double standards
and the notion of approved evil, of worthy and unworthy victims. They
would, if they knew, grieve for all the lives, families, careers, hopes
and dreams destroyed by Blair and Bush. The sure evidence is the
British public's wholehearted response to the 2004 tsunami, shaming
that of the government. Certainly, they would agree
wholeheartedly with Robert
H. Jackson, chief of counsel for the United States at the Nuremberg
trials of Nazi leaders at the end of the Second World War.
"Crimes
are crimes," he said, "whether the United States does them or whether
Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of
criminal conduct which we would not be willing to have invoked against
us." As with Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld, who dare not travel
to certain countries for fear of being prosecuted as war criminals,
Blair as a private citizen may no longer be untouchable. On 20 March,
Baltasar Garzo'n, the tenacious Spanish judge who pursued Augusto
Pinochet, called for indictments against those responsible for "one of
the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history"–
Iraq. Five days later, the
chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to which Britain
is a signatory, said that Blair could one day face war-crimes charges.These are critical
changes in the way the sane world thinks – again,
thanks to the Reich of Blair and Bush. However, we live in the most
dangerous of times. On 6 April, Blair accused "elements of
the Iranian
regime" of "backing, financing, arming and supporting terrorism in
Iraq." He offered no evidence, and the Ministry of Defense has none.
This is the same Goebbels-like refrain with which he and his coterie,
Gordon Brown included, brought an epic bloodletting to Iraq. How long
will the rest of us continue looking from the side? (NOTE:
LINKS HAVE BEEN ADDED BY Dr. Yvonne Schmidt - for more
information on the US led war against Iraq click here
and see also this: http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf06.html)
Schwachpunkt
Dollar - Konflikt zwischen Iran und dem US-geführten Westen eskaliert
auch an der Wirtschaftsfront. Wird der Ölpreis bald in Euro bestimmt?
Von Steffen Bogs und Klaus Fischer -
Junge Welt, 13. April 2007 Die
Entspannung war nur von kurzer Dauer. Kaum hatte der Iran 15
inhaftierte britische Soldaten freigelassen, verkündete Staatspräsident
Mahmud Ahmadinedschad am Ostermontag Neues vom Nuklearprogramm seines
Landes. In der Atomfabrik Natans sagte der Politiker, sein Land könne
nun Uran anreichern. Dies gilt allgemein als eine der wichtigsten
Voraussetzungen für den Betrieb von Kernkraftwerken -- und den Bau von
Atombomben. Der Iran werde bestimmten westlichen Staaten nicht
gestatten, diese Fähigkeit zu unterlaufen, so der Staatschef.
Allerdings ist der
Streit um Teherans
Nuklearprogramm nicht der einzige Punkt, der zu Eskalation beiträgt.
Auch an der ökonomoschen Front sind Prozesse im Gang, die den von
russischen Geheimdiensten lange Zeit für Karfreitag prognostizierten
Angriff der USA und Israels zu einem anderen Zeitpunkt möglich scheinen
lassen. Nicht »eingepreist« - An
den Finanzmärkten glauben die meisten Händler und Analysten nicht an
eine kriegerische Auseinandersetzung USA--Iran. Besser noch, sie wollen
es nicht. Die
ökonomischen Risiken
einer derartigen Auseinandersetzung »einzupreisen« hieße: Explosion des
Ölpreises, eine deutliche Verteuerung von Erdgas. Im Schlepptau würden
sämtliche Ansätze eines konjunkturellen Aufschwungs in den westlichen
Industriestaaten im Keim erstickt. Iran weiß um die entscheidende
Schwachstelle der USA und des gesamten kapitalistischen
Wirtschaftssystems -- den Dollar. Der muß ohnehin permanent
mit der geballten Kraft aller politischen Akteure wie Staaten, deren
Zentralbanken, sowie internationalen Wirtschafts- und
Finanzinstitutionen vom Schlage des IWF, vor dem Kollaps bewahrt werden.
Jetzt hat Teheran
geschickt an dieser Sollbruchstelle des Weltkapitalismus angesetzt, um
den USA auch ökonomisch einzuheizen. So will die Staatsbank ihre
Devisenreserven umschichten und den Dollaranteil reduzieren.
Zentralbankchef Ebrahim Sheinbany nannte als Grund für diese
Entscheidung die Sanktionen, die der UN-Sicherheitsrat gegen sein Land
verhängt hatte. Geplant sei, US-Dollar durch Euro und Yen
zu
ersetzen, ließ die Bank verlauten. Zwar ist die Summe der vom Iran
angehäuften US-Währung nicht riesig, aber mit 58 Milliarden US-Dollar
immerhin groß genug, um beim Verkauf auf die Währungsnotierung Einfluß
zu haben. Iran steht an
17. Stelle unter den Nationen, die Dollarbestände angesammelt haben.
Den ersten Platz nimmt immer noch China ein. Das Reich der Mitte hat
inzwischen die erkleckliche Summe von 1,04 Billionen US-Dollar gehortet
-- mit allen Konsequenzen, die sich daraus für das eigene und das
internationale Wirtschafts- und Währungsgefüge verbinden. Gravierender
als der Verkauf von ein paar Milliarden Dollar ist die Absicht der
iranischen Regierung, seine Erdölrechnungen nicht mehr in der
US-Währung, sondern in Euro zu legen. Das könnte nach Ansicht von
Beobachtern dem »Greenback« als Weltleitwährung den Todesstoß versetzen.2006 verkaufte der Iran
Öl im Wert von 46 Milliarden US-Dollar. Das Land rangiert
mit einer jährlichen Menge von ca. 200 Millionen Tonnen Erdöl an vierter,
und mit 80 Milliarden Kubikmetern Erdgas
an siebter Stelle der Förderländer. Es verfügt zudem über
die drittgrößten
nachgewiesenen Ölreserven (ca. 18 Milliarden Tonnen). USA im Zugzwang - Washington
wird sich die Infragestellung des Petrodollar kaum bieten lassen.
Sollte dieses Beispiel Schule machen, könnte es schnell vorbei sein,
mit der ökonomischen US-Herrlichkeit. Denn noch ist es so, daß beim
Kauf von Erdöl die jeweilige Landeswährung des Käufers erst in Dollar
umgetauscht werden muß. Damit wird eine permanente Nachfrage nach der
US-Währung erzeugt, die deren struktureller -- und faktischer --
Schwäche entgegensteht. Einer
Studie
der US-Beratungsgesellschaft Pimco zufolge, ließen die Erdölexporteure
seit 2001 ca. 1,2 Billionen Dollar aus ihren Gewinnen in die
Anlegermärkte der USA fließen. Dieses Geld gleicht einen gewichtigen
Teil der eklatanten Handelsbilanzdefizite des größten Schuldners der
Welt aus. Seit 1985 haben die Vereinigten Staaten aus dem
internationalen Warenhandel ein Minus von etwa sechs Billionen Dollar
angesammelt. Das ist etwa die Hälfte des ohnehin durch
Immobilienblasen und andere Apothekerzahlen aufgeblähten
US-Bruttoinlandsproduktes. Für
die USA und deren politische Supermachtaktivitäten ist es
überlebenswichtig, daß der Dollar Petrodollar bleibt und als wichtigste
Weltwährung eine Finanzierung der ökonomisch aberwitzigen
Dauerkonsumorgie in seinem Heimatland quasi verbrieft.Dafür,
so viele Experten, riskiert Washington unter Führung der Republikaner
zweifellos einen Krieg. Zweifelhaft allerdings ist der Ausgang einer
solchen Auseinandersetzung. Teheran ist bei weitem nicht so wehrlos,
wie Saddam Husseins Irak. So könnte das iranische Militär
nach
Ansicht von Experten recht zügig die Straße von Hormuz dichtmachen. Ein
Drittel der weltweiten Erdöltransporte aus Saudi-Arabien, Kuwait, Iran,
Irak und den Emiraten laufen durch dieses Nadelöhr am Persischen Golf. Eine
veritable Ölkrise wäre die Folge. Und die im iranischen Besitz
vermuteten russischen SS-N-27-Raketen könnten sogar den Symbolen der
globalen US-Macht, den Flugzeugträgern, gefährlich werden. Gegen diese
Anti-Schiffs-Marschflugkörper hat die US-Navy derzeit kein Abwehrmittel.
The Democrat Contenders and Iran - The Awful
Truth About Hillary, Barack and John.-
12/04/2007 -By NORMAN SOLOMON The
Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran. Hillary Clinton says "no
option can be taken off the table." Barack Obama says that the Iranian
government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option,
including military action, off the table." John Edwards says, "Under no
circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And: "We
need to keep all options on the table." A year ago, writing in The New
Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: "One of the military's
initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon
this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear
weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites." For a
presidential candidate to proclaim that all "options" should be on the
table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals
willingness to threaten -- and possibly follow through with -- first
use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington's
policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with
longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine. This year, with their
virtually identical statements about "options" and "the table," the
leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Clinton, Obama and
Edwards -- have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran. If
you're not shocked or outraged yet, consider this: On Feb. 22, the
national leaders of MoveOn sent an e-mail letter to more than 3 million
people with the subject line "War with Iran?" After citing a need to
give UN sanctions "a chance to work before provoking a regional
conflict," the letter said flatly: "Senator Hillary Clinton has
provided some much needed leadership on this." The MoveOn letter quoted
a passage from a speech that Clinton had given on the Senate floor
eight days earlier: "It would be a mistake of historical proportion if
the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force
against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran
without further congressional authorization. Nor should the president
think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist
attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the
administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is
necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority."
But, while quoting Hillary Clinton's speech as an example of "some much
needed leadership," MoveOn made no mention of the fact that the same
speech stated: "As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S.
policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must
not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing
with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be
taken off the table." Earlier this year, David Rieff noted in The New
York Times Magazine on March 25, "Vice President Cheney insisted that
the administration had not taken any options off the table' as Iran
continued to defy United Nations calls for it to abandon its nuclear
ambitions. The response from Democrats was not long in coming. Senator
Clinton helped lead the charge, reminding the president that he did not
have the authority to go to war with Iran on the basis of the Senate's
authorization of the use of force in Iraq in 2002. "But what Senator
Clinton did not say was at least as interesting as what she did say.
And what she did not say was that she opposed the use of force in Iran.
To the contrary, Senator Clinton used virtually the same formulation as
Vice President Cheney. When dealing with Iran, she insisted, no option
can be taken off the table.'" To praise Hillary Clinton for providing
"much needed leadership" on Iran -- and to mislead millions of e-mail
recipients counted as MoveOn members in the process -- is a notable
choice to make. It speaks volumes. It winks at Clinton's stance that
"no option can be taken off the table." It serves an enabling function.
It is very dangerous. The stakes are much too high to make excuses or
look the other way. Norman Solomon is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits
Keep Spinning Us to Death.
For Iran, it's a win-win situation
- 12/04/2007 - By Georgy Mirsky for RIA Novosti - Experts
have two main questions about the situation in Iran: first, are the
Iranians close to developing a nuclear bomb? And second, are the
Americans going to start a war there? Several thousand centrifuges are
enough to enrich uranium to 90% and produce a nuclear bomb within a
year. Earlier, the Iranians announced their intention to increase the
number of centrifuges at the Natanz facility to 3,000; on April 10,
after the celebration of the National Day of Nuclear Technologies
(April 9), Gholamreza Agazade, Iran's vice president and head of the
country's atomic energy organization, said that the plan is to launch
50,000 centrifuges. Nevertheless, IAEA officials have warned many times
that it is not possible to prove that Iran wants to develop nuclear
weapons. This situation is not likely to change. But there is still
indirect evidence that what the Iranians are developing is very far
from a civilian nuclear industry. In 2005, Russia made an offer to Iran
to enrich uranium for it, and guaranteed that Iranian nuclear plants
would be fully loaded with nuclear fuel. Tehran rejected the idea, as
well as a package of proposals from the UN Security Council members and
Germany. Iran was promised help with its WTO entry, assistance in
building nuclear power plants and supplies of new spare parts for
worn-out civilian aircraft if it gave up uranium enrichment. But Iran
turned down all these tempting proposals for only one reason - it
wanted to avoid foreign control over its uranium enrichment. It seems
that throughout the talks, Tehran has simply been stalling for time in
order to start enriching weapons-grade uranium. It is clear, though,
that Iran does not need the bomb. Whom would it drop it on? The United
States is far away, and an attack on Israel would kill not only Jews
but also Arabs in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. It is
abundantly clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran, with its
aspirations to Muslim leadership, would not dare kill millions of its
brethren-in-faith. The bomb has no practical use. Most probably, Tehran
plans to stop at the five-minute-readiness level, that is, one step
before the bomb. This would allow the Iranian leaders to enjoy
unheard-of prestige at home, dominate the Muslim world, and dictate its
terms to the West. Iran is already talking with everyone from a
position of strength because it feels invulnerable and is not afraid of
an American attack. The Americans are stuck in Iraq and cannot afford
to launch another military land operation. Pinpoint air strikes at
nuclear facilities may delay the Iranian nuclear program for several
years but will not change the regime. In any case, the Iranians are not
likely to leave the American strike unanswered. They may attack oil
refineries in neighboring countries or U.S. military bases in the
region. This would be a disaster for the U.S. in Iraq - all the local
Shiites who cooperated with the Americans, albeit without much
enthusiasm, will turn against them. This would lead to the defeat of
the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential, congressional and
gubernatorial elections. Although George W. Bush may be very tempted to
attack Iran, he is not a dictator and will not ignore public opinion
and ruin his party. The Iranians are not afraid of sanctions, either.
Those imposed by the UN Security Council are irritating but not very
effective. Only an embargo on oil and gas exports would be deadly for
Iran, but nobody except the Americans would insist on such a measure,
and the Iranians are fully aware of this. Therefore, they can say with
a straight face that they will ignore the world community and continue
enriching uranium. The question is what to do after the expiration of
the 60-day deadline stipulated by the UN Security Council in its latest
resolution on Iran (#1747 of March 24)? It would be logical to adopt an
even tougher resolution, but there are fears that stronger measures
could compel Iran to quit the IAEA and go on enriching uranium without
any control. But maybe it's worth the risk? Iran is in desperate need
of investment, without which its industries cannot cope with domestic
requirements. Even though it is a world leader in oil reserves, today
Iran has to import 40% of its gasoline. A gradual economic isolation of
Iran could be quite effective, probably leading the Iranians to give up
their nuclear ambitions. If they did so, they would still be able to
save face and say that they never even thought about building a bomb
but merely wanted to secure more privileges for their peaceful nuclear
industry. "We have not been brought to our knees; we have won," the
Iranian leaders would say. Georgy Mirsky is a senior researcher at the
Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the Russian
Academy of Sciences. (The opinions expressed in this article are the
author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)
The American Chemical Society Terminates the
Membership of Chemists from Iran - (07/04/2007)
- By DAVID N. RAHNI - Counterpounch The American
Chemical Society (ACS)
has once again led the way, with its "zealot" interpretation of
"embargo" by the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset
Control, by terminating the membership of its long-standing members in
Iran, many of whom are post Ph.D. Alumni of American Universities.
Several years ago, the ACS undertook a similar unprecedented action,
under the same law. Then, it unilaterally stopped accepting scholarly
and research manuscripts from Iranian scientists for its three dozen
periodicals in the publication division. However, later, under
embarrassing pressure from the American scientific community and its
membership, the ACS retracted its decision and agreed to take it up
instead with the federal government.
Paradoxically and notwithstanding rhetoric, such ill-conceived measures
are against the current U.S. Administration policy of promoting
people-to-people contact as enunciated by the Assistant Secretary of
State Nicholas Burns at the March 29 hearing of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, in
Science Magazine, reported that the ACS Assistant General Counsel,
David Smorodin when "re-reading the embargo rules, made the
recommendation to terminate Iranian membership (Science Magazine, Vol.
315, 30 March 2007). One can not help but speculate whether or not such
decision is truly serving the interests of member-based ACS or
enforcing the laws to the limit as he has served as a U.S. Assistant
District Attorney before joining the ACS. Nonetheless,
despite the abrupt termination of individual membership of Iranian
chemical scientists with no due process, the ACS has stated that while
they [Iranians] can continue to purchase journals and other
"non-sensitive products at full-rate, the ACS might apply for a special
license from the Treasury Department to reinstate their memberships.
This has in the meantime deprived American chemists to learn about the
scholarly contributions of their Iranian peers. It should be
noted that as in the past, the American Physical Society (APS),
in contrast, stated, "We have NO plan to do anything similar, and
continue to serve our members in Iran." Judy Franz, a director at the
APS further stated that, "We would resist having to obtain a license to
the extent we can." When interviewed by Science Magazine,
the official publication of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), David Rahni an Iranian-American
chemistry professor in New York stated, "I, like most ACS members and
peers in the scientific community, strongly question the ACS motive on
this issue, and expect ACS,s leadership to refrain from allowing
politics to taint the high stature the Organization has achieved."
Rahni
further stated that this has personally concerned him gravely since he
has served the ACS with distinctions in the past thirty years, as
typified by his positions as the chair of the ACS New York, the chair
of the Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting, and the chair of Nichols
Medal. 90% of the ACS projects, publications and activities are run by
a huge cadre of volunteer professionals who, with no expectations, give
their time, energy, money and intellects and talents to the advancement
of the chemical sciences worldwide.
It is painfully ironic to many, especially the ACS American members to
witness the politicization of their disciplines through the ACS as they
continue to register their grave concerns with the ACS lucratively
remunerated executive directors. As a chemistry professor with
having given fifty years of his life to the ACS and the profession so
eloquently put it, "Never mind the Iranians as one may not give a darn
about them and their plights, what, I am bewildered to speculate the
ulterior motives of the ACS paid "professional leadership is to
embarrass us as freethinking science. ACS is US and not its DC staff as
they are required by our mandate to serve our interests and not create
problems for us. The consensus
among the nearly one million Americans of Iranian ancestry is to
reaffirm their yearning commitment to the attainment of justice,
security, stability, equity, transparency and human rights through
"home-grown", indigenous and democratic reforms in Iran, but not at the
expense of isolating the scientific community in their motherland from
their peers worldwide. They further deplore any possible unilateral
military action against Iran, as they firmly believe this is
counter-productive to the organic, slow, but steady evolution of Iran
through educational benchmark, cultural reforms and communication with
the rest of the world. They further consider military action and/or
isolation counter-productive to the credibility of their American
homeland which would inevitably lead, once again, to the priceless loss
of human life and loss of credibility for our nation in the
international scene. Iran's chemist/chemical
engineering
professionals/scholars numbers tens of thousands. They are, by and
large, members of the Iranian Chemical Society. However,
many of them hold at least one overseas membership, mostly in the Royal
Societies in the UK. There are currently 36 Iranian members in the
American Chemical Society. The strong position of chemistry/chemical
engineering in Iran is due to the oil and gas explorations by the
petrochemical industry during the past 100 years, and due to some of
Iran,s renowned past and contemporary chemists, scientists, and
philosophers. The contributions of Americans of Iranian background to
the chemistry and sciences, engineering and medicine, is unparalleled
by other recent immigrant communities. There indeed exists
an Iranian Chemists'
Association of the ACS that since its inception in
the 80, has reached out to over a thousand chemists of Iranian ancestry
in the U.S. alone. It is well substantiated that as long as the
diplomatic relations between the two nations remain at a hostile
stalemate, a political cloud hovers over the personal and professional
aspirations of Iranian-Americans. Specifically, senior and executive
level professional opportunities for Iranian-Americans, particularly in
government, higher education and the corporate world, remain
chronically undermined. Iran, a
multiethnic country of 70 million, traces its heritage to a long and
illustrious history, 10,000 years in the making, with 2500 years of a
continuous form of government. There are two million students in her
higher education system, 60% of whom, especially in the sciences,
engineering and medicine, are women. Its literacy rate is 90%,
unprecedented in that part of the world. Iran or Persia as it was
formerly known by the outside world until 1935, has indeed contributed
immensely toward the advancement of science, technology and society for
millennia. Rhazes, Avicenna, Algorithm, Omer Khayam, Farabi,
Biruni, Hayyan, and many others are some of the epics that come to a
western scholar,s mind. Despite
the tremendous burden imposed on the Iranian students and scholars as
they struggle to obtain a US visa (mostly denied) for doctoral studies,
some of the brightest graduate students in Ivy League Universities
(e.g., Stanford, Harvard, Berkeley, and MIT) are Iranians.
Increasingly, however, they opt to pursue their doctoral studies in
Australia, Canada and Europe. Iranian high school students have
continuously
ranked among the top few of the nations in the International Chemistry
and other Science Olympiads, and Robotics and Computing
Competitions. Isn't
it ironic that when the ACS claims to be an international professional
society, 130 years old, with a membership of 160,000, 10% of whom are
from overseas, and an additional 20%, are naturalized Americans or
permanent residents, that it forces the nationals of Iran out, deprives
them from maintaining scientific communications with peers worldwide,
and does not let them contribute toward the advancement of science
worldwide? Notwithstanding the
rhetoric and provocations leading to a possible disastrous
confrontation by governments, a true scientist, or a credible
organization of scientists such as the ACS, which does not recognize
the boundaries of the world, should be capable to transcend all
political barriers for the advancement of science. David
N. Rahni, Ph.D. is a Professor of Chemistry at Pace University, in
Pleasantville, New York and Adjunct Professor of Dermatology, New York
Medical College. He is also an Adj. Prof. Envirnonmental Law at Pace U.
He can be reached at: dnabirahni@pace.edu
"...Once
again Iran is in the news. While the US has learnt nothing from the
invasion of Iraq and continues its posturing with Iran, Iranian women
have certainly heeded a few lessons. Their active struggle for gender
equality is now exacerbated by concerns about military attacks and how
external threats are used as a pretext further to limit their space for
building a stronger women's movement. Meanwhile in Iraq, girls' and
young women's attendance at schools and universities is in rapid
decline owing to security fears; the war and occupation have left the
economy in tatters; and women are the first to suffer from lack of
education and employment and to be pushed back to their homes to
perform domestic duties. All this is compounded by the Iraqi government
bringing in new discriminatory legislation. Across the border in Iran,
women from all backgrounds now make up more than 60 per cent of
university entrants. Iran's women's movement is now challenging the
system that leaves many of these graduates jobless, by demanding a
change in discriminatory laws. Through a national coalition of leading
civil society women activists, students and democratic forces, they are
struggling to change discriminatory laws to enhance dialogue,
collaboration and democratic action. It is a bumpy road to travel, with
leading members arrested in the run-up to International Women's Day
protests and released only after a few days, yet the movement grows
daily: something only a war could stop. We, the undersigned, as women
activists, academics and politicians, condemn any threat of and actual
military action against Iran and support the Iranian women's campaign.Mahboubeh
Abbasgholizadeh, Director, NGO Training Centre,
Tehran. Shadi Sadr, Lawyer, Tehran. Prof
Elaheh Koolaee, University of Tehran. Fatemeh
Farhangkhah, The Society for Protection of Handicapped
Children and Youth NGO, Tehran. Dr Fatemeh
Sadeghi, Academic, Tehran. Lily
Farhadpour, Writer and journalist, Tehran. Maryam
Ommi, Student and NGO Training Centre, Tehran. Mahsa
Shekarloo, Badjens.com, Women's Website, Tehran. Prof
Haleh Afshar, York University. Prof Homa
Hoodfarm, Women Living Under Muslim Laws
(WLUML). Roudabeh Shafie, Anti-War
Campaigner. Dr Mehri Honarbin-Holliday, Kent
University. Dr Ziba Mir-Hosseini, The London Middle
East Institute. Dr Elaheh Rostami-Povey, School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Dr Laleh
Khalili, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London. Mahnaz Razavi, Consultant
Psychotherapist. Dr Nadjie Ali, University of
Exeter. Tahrir Abdul Samad Swift, Arab Media
Watch. Fenik Adham, Counsellor. Salma Yaqoob,
Councillor. Rania Khan, Councillor. Yvonne
Ridley, Journalist and author. Clare Short
MP. Lynne Featherstone MP. Lynne Jones
MP. Jean Lambert MEP. Lindsey German, Stop
The War Coalition. Jane Shallise, Stop The War
Coalition. Dr Ayesha Imam, WLUML,
Senegal. Prof Fatou Sow, Université Diderot Paris,
WLUML. Sultana Kamal, WLUML,
Bangladesh. Farida Shaheed, Shirkat Gah and WLUML
Pakistan. Codou Bop, WLUML, regional office,
Senegal. Zarizana Abdul Aziz, WLUML,
Malaysia. Prof Nayereh Tohidi, California State
University"
"...
Dear Mrs. Merkel we ask you to act because danger is
looming. Do prevent this
war! Otherwise Germany and the European Union
could be made responsible for a disaster of unthinkable dimesions...
Stand up for a Conference of Security and Co-operation in the Middle
East to begin as early as possible, in order to start the peaceful
dialogue in the region. Either there is a common solution for the
actual conflicts in the region or there will be a fire storm,
chaos and new calamity for the whole of mankind..." (ENGLISH
pdf here)
"...
Sehr verehrte Frau Merkel, wegen Gefahr im Verzug bitten wir Sie zu
handeln. Verhindern Sie
diesen Krieg und dass Deutschland und die
Europäische Union für ein Desaster unvorstellbaren Ausmaßes mit
verantwortlich gemacht werden wird... Setzen Sie sich für den
baldigen Beginn einer Konferenz für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit im
Mittleren und Nahen Osten ein, um damit den friedlichen Dialog
in der Region zu eröffnen. Denn entweder gibt es eine gemeinsame Lösung
für die aktuellen Konflikte in der Region oder es gibt einen
Flächenbrand,
Chaos und neues Unglück für die Menschheit..." (GERMAN
pdf here) (70,76 KB)
European, international
and United States legal and human rights groups issued an open letter
to All Members of Congress, the Bush Administration And the U.S. Armed
Forces warning of the illegality of any offensive military action by
the United States against Iran.... If the United States or
any other nation were to act outside of its UN obligations
it would risk starting a war of aggression and committing a
crime against peace. Furthermore, the sending of aircraft carriers
combined with recent threatening statements constitutes a threat to
wage a war with Iran. This is also prohibited by the
Charter. Principle
VI of the
Nuremberg Principles also
makes
crimes against peace punishable under international law.
Crimes against peace include: planning, preparation,
initiation or waging a war of aggression
in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances,
or participation in a common plan or conspiracy to accomplish these
acts.... Signatories include the American Association of
Jurists, Center for Constitutional Rights (U.S.), Droite Solidarite
(France), European Association of Lawyers for Human Rights and
Democracy, Italian Association of Democratic Lawyers, Haldane Society
(United Kingdom), International Association of Democratic Lawyers,
Indian Association of Lawyers, (India), Japanese Association of Lawyers
for International Solidarity, (Japan), Lawyers Against War (Canada),
National Lawyers Guild (U.S.), Progress Lawyers Network (Belgium).
At
the outset I would like to congratulate you on your election as the
Chairman of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010
NPT Review Conference. I am sure that under your able chairmanship as a
distinguished and experienced diplomat this session would have a
successful outcome.
Mr. Chairman, I
would like
associate myself with the statement delivered by the distinguished
ambassador of Cuba, on behalf of the Non-aligned Movement.
Mr.
Chairman, distinguished delegates, After almost Forty years
following the conclusion of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), despite increasing challenges encountered
this Treaty, the NPT
remains the cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament and
nonproliferation in all its aspects. However the NPT
today faces three --- major challenges: lack of progress towards
nuclear disarmament, awarding nonparties by generous offer of supplying
technology and materials useable for production of nuclear weapons
particularly in the Middle East, and lastly increased limitations
against the developing nations parties to the Treaty, on peaceful
use of nuclear energy. The NPT
set the foundation for nuclear disarmament and. nonproliferation as
well as promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy almost four
decades ago. These three objectives of the NPT have yet to be
fulfilled. Given the nightmare of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki
nuclear bombings, the international community rightly considers the
continued existence of thousands of nuclear weapons in the stockpiles
of Nuclear Weapon States and their possible use as the most serious
threat to the very existence of humankind. The limited efforts of the
two major Nuclear Weapon States after the Cold War in reducing their
nuclear arsenals or decommissioning some of their nuclear warheads and
placing them in the storerooms can not meet the expectations of
international community nor is it consistent with their legal
obligations. Nuclear weapon States have not fulfilled their obligations
under Article VI of the
NPT.
Lack of any timeframe or deadline for the elimination of nuclear
weapons in this Article is one of the most serious shortcomings of the
Treaty. Unfortunately the existing trend is not promising and the
prompt implementation of this Article is an urgent necessity. The
emergence of a new security doctrine by the United States that seek to
rationalize the development and stockpiling of a new generation of
tactical nuclear weapons and their use in conventional conflicts and
against perceived non-nuclear weapon adversaries, continued
weaponization of outer-space as well as the reliance on the nuclear
weapon for a foreseeable future as a key element in the national
security strategy of certain Nuclear Weapon States are more than ever
worrisome. The recent decision of the United Kingdom to renew and
further develop its nuclear weapons capability, by approving the Trident Project, is
in full contravention with Article
VI of the NPT and in defiance with the unanimous decision
of the 2000 NPT Review
Conference. The Trident
Project can
generate and in fact expand nuclear arms race beyond the traditional
rivalry between the two most powerful Nuclear Weapon States, thus is a
special source of concern for the international community and is a
clear set back for the global efforts to bolster nuclear disarmament
and non - proliferation. The continuation of nuclear weapon sharing
arrangements with Non- Nuclear Weapon States being in
contravention
with Article 1 of the NPT, particularly through the deployment of
nuclear weapons in the NATO European countries, has been overlooked.
The development and testing of new nuclear weapons in laboratory
conditions and by using supercomputers, which run contrary to the
spirit and letter of the CTBT, is also a clear violation of the Article VI of the NPT
and has been considered as a vertical proliferation. And last but not
the least, the planned deployment of missile defense systems in various
regions, is in total disregard for the agreement of the 2000 NPT Review
Conference. Furthermore, the transfer of nuclear technology and
materials to nonparties to the NPT, in particular the 2000 agreement of
nuclear cooperation between the United States and Israeli regime, whose
nuclear arsenals presents the greatest threat to regional and
international peace and stability, and providing its scientists the
full access to the US nuclear facilities, has demonstrated the US total
disregard for its obligations under Article I of the Treaty and is
another example of noncompliance of the United States with the NPT
provisions.
Mr. Chairman, The NPT
constitutes an
integrated and holistic structure, whose effectiveness lies in full
compliance with all its provisions by all parties without any
discrimination. The selective approach imposed by a few States for the
realization of all provisions of the NPT undermines the international
interest in its full implementation. Their refusal to address the issue
of nuclear disarmament is chief among the unimplemented provisions of
the Treaty. As the result of the major efforts by States Parties to
strengthen the Treaty, the 2000 NPT Review Conference agreed by
consensus on its Final Document, "the unequivocal undertakings by the
Nuclear- Weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their
nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States
Parties are committed under Article VI". Accordingly, the Conference
also adopted the 13 practical steps for the systematic and progressive
efforts to implement Article VI. We should not let these commitments go
unnoticed. The 2000 NPT Review Conference, under the Chapter on
"Article VII" of its Final Document also reaffirmed that total
elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against
the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and agreed that legally
binding security assurances by the five Nuclear Weapon States to the
Non-Nuclear Weapon States parties to the NPT strengthen the
non-proliferation regime, and called upon the Preparatory
Committee to make recommendations about it. It is an unfulfilled task
ahead of us. We urge the 2010 NPT Review Conference and its Preparatory
Committee to work hard on this critical issue.
Mr.
Chairman, The establishment of nuclear weapon free zones
in different regions of the globe constitutes an effective measure to
realize the main objective of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. It is therefore promising that such NWFZs
have been established in some regions of the world, but still await
ratification by all Nuclear Weapon States and therefore full
implementation. Through the establishment of such zones a large part of
the world shall effectively renounce and in most strong term, the
possession and development of nuclear weapons. However a few regions of
the world, despite the aspirations of their people are still far trom
achieving such a goal. The establishment of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
in the Middle East has been the long-standing goal
of the people of the region. Iran, first initiated the idea of the
establishment of a nuclear-weapon-tree zone, as an important
disarmament measure in the Middle East in 1974, followed by the
relevant resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly, the IAEA
General Conference as w ell as Final Declarations of all NPT Review
Conferences. The Zionist Regime remains the only obstacle for the
establishment of such a zone in region. Peace and stability could not
be achieved in the Middle East while a massive nuclear arsenal
continues to threaten the region and beyond. It is a matter of regret
that while no practical measure is taken to contain such threat as the
real source of nuclear danger in the Middle East, the Islamic Republic
of Iran as a member of the NPT and the initiator of the idea of the
establishment of a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in Middle East is under
tremendous pressure to renounce its inalienable right for peaceful use
of nuclear energy. Unfortunately, the absolute ignorance and regretful
silence of the Security Council over the past several decades in
addressing the welldocumented illicit nuclear weapons program
pursued by the Zionist Regime, and over the threats of military attack
against peaceful nuclear activities of the States Parties to the
Treaty, as well as full support of some Western countries trom such
policies, have given the audacity to this regime to explicitly
acknowledge possession of nuclear weapons, in contradiction to the
long-sought idea of the establishment of a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in
the Middle East. The Non-Aligned Movement in its statement issued on 5
February, 2007 expressed its great concern over such acquisition of
nuclear capability, which poses a serious and continuing threat to the
security of neighboring and other States, and condemned that Regime on
its action and for continuing to develop and stockpile nuclear
arsenals. We expect that this session of the Preparatory Committee
unanimously do the same and condemn such declared policy.
Mr.
Chairman, On
the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the IAEA establishment, I
cannot, but to express our appreciation for those who genuinely
contribute to the promotion of peaceful use of nuclear energy. It is
however disappointing that the authority of the Agency as the sole and
autonomous authority for verification of the safeguard agreements as
well as promotion of technical cooperation has been undermined. The
engagement of the Security Council on such issues as verification and
peaceful cooperation of the Agency with Member States is in clear
contradiction with the provisions of the IAEA Statute. The inalienable
right of the States Parties to the NPT to develop nuclear technology
for peaceful purposes including fuel cycle emanates from the
universally accepted proposition that scientific and technological
achievements are the common heritage of mankind. Nuclear technology has
been recognized as a source of energy and a viable option within the
sustainable development policies with broad applications. The promotion
of the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes has been,
therefore, one of the main pillars of the NPT and the main statutory
objective of the IAEA. It is unacceptable that some countries tend to
limit the access to '_ peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club
of technologically advanced States under the pretext of
non-proliferation. This attitude is in clear violation of the letter
and spirit of the Treaty and destroys the fundamental balance, which
exists between the rights and obligations in the Treaty. The Treaty
itself clearly rejects this attempt in its Article IV by emphasizing
that "nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the
inalienable right of all Parties to the Treaty to develop research,
produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without
discrimination." The involvement of other international
organizations even the United Nations Security Council can not be
justified to impose limitations against the peaceful use of nuclear
energy in contravention with the clear statutory obligations well
established by the NPT and the IAEA Statute. This attitude would only
undermine the credibility of the international organizations, which
have been created to assist nations to realize their legitimate
aspirations.
Mr. Chairman, In conclusion I
would like to add
some points in highlighting the principled position of the Islamic
Republic of Iran with respect to its cooperation with the IAEA and its
relevance to the NPT. As my Government has repeatedly indicated weapons
of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, have no place in
the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense doctrine and according to a
religious decree(Fatwa) issued by the supreme leader of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, such inhuman weapons are considered
prohibited and
against the Islamic law. Islamic Republic of Iran, suspended all its
enrichment activities for about 2.5 years in order to facilitate
removal of any ambiguity if any, about its nucl ear activities. It is
essential to note that the suspension was considered, in all
resolutions of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, as voluntary,
non-legally binding. Therefore, stopping voluntary suspension could not
be considered in any way as a violation. The Director General of the
IAEA has repeatedly reported to the Board of Governors that there has
been no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials and activities to
prohibited purposes and all declared nuclear materials have been
accounted for. According to Article XII of the Statute, non-compliance
and diversion have to be recognized by the inspectors, and then be
reported to DG, where he, thereupon shall report to the Board
ofGovernors. Since none of these legal procedure and requirements have
been pursued, therefore the resolution GOV /2006/14 of the Board of
Governors conveying the nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security
Council, did not havelegal grounds, consequently the resolutions 1696,
1737 and 1747 passed, on the basis of the Board of Governors
resolution, are unjustified and legally baseless. Certainly if Iran was
not party to NPT, it would have not been faced with such unfair
situation. Penalizing NPT party on political grounds shall have grave
consequences.
Mr. Chairman, Acceptance
of over 2000
man-day most robust inspections and granting access to over 20 military
sites, as well as voluntarily implementation of the Additional
Protocol, prior to ratification, for almost three years, are crystal
clear indication of Iran's commitments to international
non-proliferation. Suspension of voluntary measures, such as the
implementation of the Additional Protocol, was made, in accordance with
the law passed by parliament, pursuant to convey of the nuclear dossier
to the United Nations Security Council. Therefore, one has to strongly
blame those few members of the Board of Governors for the status quo.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to negotiate with interested
parties on mechanisms that could guarantee the non-diversion of Iran's
peaceful activities in the future. While emphasizing on nuclear fuel
cycle programs, aimed at the industrial production of fuel needed for
its reactors and power plants, Iran stresses that there is no capacity
at any level (R&D, pilot or industrial) for the production of
nuclear material useable for nuclear weapons. The path of the Security
Council has no sound legal basis for Iran's nuclear issue. Any further
steps taken by the Security Council, would surely complicate the
situation, is counterproductive for settlement of the issue and put at
stake the current efforts and initiatives for resuming the
negotiations, for peaceful settlement of this issue. The Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to be ready to resolve a few of
the remaining issues with the Agency, provided that the nuclear
dossier, is returned in full in the framework of the lAEA and the
United Nations Security Council disengagement is realized. The Islamic
Republic of Iran is the responsible State and continues to comply with
its obligations under the NPT, but will not stand still in the face of
intimidation and threats, and will never give up its inalienable rights
for peaceful use of nuclear energy, stipulated in Article IV of the NPT
and articles I and 11 of the Agency's Statute.
Mr.
Chairman, This
Preparatory review process of the NPT which was further strengthened by
the 1995 NPT Conference provides the best forum for addressing the real
challenges to the Treaty and identifying proper solutions for them.
Serious collective measures to remedy these concern, have to taken
prior to the 2010 NPT Review Conference; otherwise, the future of the
Treaty will be in jeopardy. The credibility and legitimacy of the
Treaty does not lie in adopting a discriminatory approach to
concentrate in some particular aspects of the Treaty, which coincides
with the political interest of some parties, but lies in a balanced
review of all basic obligations of the Treaty. This principle applies
to substantive as well as procedural aspects of our work. I hope that
this First Session of the Preparatory Committee under your able
chairmanship would take a very firm step towards preparation for such a
review and establish a solid ground for other sessions of the
Preparatory Committee to follow.
Thank you for your
kind attention. (PDF Version here)
OIC Sec Gen asks for
declaring Mideast as Nuclear Free Zone (REPETITION: correction
in headline)-
(11/04/2007)
- IRNA -
Secretary
General of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) said here Wednesday
OIC is determined to set a cornerstone for ending application of double
standards regarding nuclear issues. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
made the comment at his joint press conference with IRI Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, adding,
"In line with pursuing that objective, the OIC asks for declaring the
Middle East a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, so as to impose pressure over
Israel to conduct its nuclear activities under the supervision of the
IAEA, and to abide by that agency's treaties." He added, "We already
have a good example
of a Nuclear
Weapons Free Zone in Central Asia."
Ihsanoglu said, "In
line with the same objective, we also encourage Iran to adopt measures
to build trust among regional countries and to help to end all
remaining worries regarding its peaceful nuclear program, and to
continue them while maintaining constructive interactions with regional
countries." He referred to his talks with the IRI
President and
the Iranian Foreign Minister on latest status of nuclear developments,
arguing, "From OIC's
point of view,
all countries, including Iran, are entitled to take peaceful advantage
of nuclear technology under the supervision of the IAEA, and abiding by
all NPT regulations." Ihsanoglu further emphasized, "Regarding
Iran's nuclear program we seriously believe in need to respect that
right, and we emphasize that till solving all remaining issues it
should keep abiding by IAEA regulations and keep cooperating with that
UN agency." He stressed that the OIC approves resuming of
peaceful negotiations based on international laws and without any
preconditions, save for abiding by NPT rules, in a bid to end solve the
problem, believing that sanctions will not solve any problems. The OIC
Chief said, "There are
numerous cases
in the world that sanctions have not yielded to any results, and on the
contrary, they have led to negative results, including inflicting
losses against people." In response to a question why the
OIC,
as an important member of the international community, does not
strongly and openly support Iran, or even reflect its supportive
viewpoints in written documents, Ihsanoglu said, "I
must admit that is not OIC's problem, since we are constantly
exchanging information with Iran, and regarding sanctions, too, the OIC
has openly declared its viewpoints." He emphasized, "We
clearly defend Iran's absolute rights, as well as the rights of all our
other members, and we believe issuing resolutions and imposing sanction
yield no favorable results and lead to negative aftermaths, as well."
Mottaki, too, at the joint press conference appreciated the OIC
Secretary General for supporting Iran's logical stands in insisting to
pursue its peaceful nuclear activities. Referring to Ihsanoglu's
meeting with President Ahmadinejad, he said, "During
that meeting the OIC Secretary General was asked to present his
proposals aimed for eliminating the possible remaining worries among
some regional countries regarding activities at Iran's Bushehr Nuclear
Reactor." Mottaki also focused on probability of holding a
meeting in Iraq, arguing, "Iran
favors holding a conference, inclusive of Iraq's neighbors, in addition
to Egypt and Bahrain, in accordance with previous agreements, in Iraq."
2329/1771 (Treaty establishing a Central Asian Nuclear
Weapon Free Zone (CANWFZ)
(pdf file 122 KB))
In the name of God, the Compassionate,
the Merciful
Mr. Chairman,
I
would like to begin by congratulating you on your election as the
Chairman of the Disarmament Commission. I am confident that under your
able leadership, we will have a fruitful session this year.
My
delegation wishes to associate itself with the statement made by the
distinguished representative of Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned
Movement.
Given the role of the
Disarmament Commission as the sole deliberative body on disarmament
issues with universal membership, we welcome the Commission entering
the intermediate year of its three-year-cycle of in-depth substantive
deliberations on nuclear disarmament. In view of certain setbacks and
unfulfilled commitments in disarmament area, it is of a high time for
the Commission to focus on exploring ways and means for elimination of
nuclear weapons.
Following the nuclear
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States and their
tragic aftermath, it took the international community more than two
decades to come up with a collective action in the form of the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Treaty was seen as a
genuine promise to rid the world from nuclear weapons nightmare.
However, after almost four decades since the entry into force of the
NPT, a real progress towards nuclear disarmament has yet to be
achieved. The world public opinion is extremely weary of the
continuation of this situation, and rightly expects the nuclear weapons
states to take concrete actions to fulfill their contractual
obligations with regard to nuclear disarmament.
In
1978, the General Assembly, cognizant of the fact that nuclear weapons
constitute the gravest threat to international peace and security,
adopted the Final Document of the SSOD-I which stressed on the nuclear
disarmament as the highest priority on disarmament agenda. In our view,
the nuclear disarmament is a major milestone towards the real objective
of the disarmament process namely general and complete disarmament.
In
recent years, certain developments have presented serious challenges to
the objective of nuclear disarmament which inter-alia include:
•
persistent refusal by the nuclear weapons states especially the United
States to fulfill the agreed 13 practical steps as a part of
unequivocal undertaking to accomplish nuclear disarmament ;
•
the continuation of nuclear weapon-sharing arrangements with
non-nuclear-weapons states in contravention of Article I of the NPT,
particularly through the deployment of nuclear weapons in the NATO
European countries;
• the development
and testing of new nuclear weapons in laboratory conditions, which run
contrary to the spirit and letter of the CTBT;
•
the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to non-parties to the
NPT, in particular the agreement of nuclear cooperation between the
United States and Israel, whose nuclear arsenals presents the greatest
threat to regional and international peace and stability, and providing
Israeli scientists access to the US nuclear facilities, thereby
demonstrating the US total disregard for its obligations under Article
I of the Treaty;
• the planned
deployment of missile defense systems in various regions and the threat
to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states;
•
advancing new doctrines to justify the reliance on nuclear weapons,
especially by stressing the essential role of nuclear weapons as an
effective tool for achieving security goals and foreign policy
objectives, and targeting non-nuclear weapon States Parties to the
Treaty;
•
developing new nuclear weapons systems, and constructing new facilities
for producing nuclear weapons,
•
resuming efforts to develop and deploy tactical nuclear weapons despite
the commitment to reverse this process and effectively reduce them;
In
short, the NPT nowadays is facing serious risks due to the adoption of
a policy of negation, denial and refusal by the nuclear weapons states
especially United States with respect to their unequivocal undertaking
to accomplish the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. In this
context, the US continues to undermine the integrity and credibility of
the NPT by obstructing the follow up process of nuclear disarmament
commitments within the framework of the UN multilateral disarmament
machinery, and pursues its own unilateral policies and priorities
through more exclusive bodies and groups.
We
have a collective responsibility to restore the credibility of the NPT.
To realize this goal, we need to address collectively and thoroughly
such daunting challenges.
Mr. Chairman,
The
NPT is the foundation of nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation
and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Our efforts in this august body
should be directed towards mutual reinforcement of these interrelated
pillars of the Treaty.
The current
session of the Commission should intensify efforts to adopt concrete
recommendations in achieving the objectives of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. Our endeavors should be guided by the following
principles:
• to maintain and strengthen the
integrity of the existing non proliferation instruments;
• to reject attempts to undermine
the inalienable rights of the states parties;
• to preserve fully the
achievements reached at the NPT 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences;
•
to emphasize the authority and credibility of relevant international
organizations such as IAEA with regard to the verification of
compliance;
The Commission should
re-emphasize the “unequivocal undertaking” of the nuclear weapons
states for systematic and progressive efforts to implement nuclear
disarmament, and recommend appropriate measures for its realization.
For many years, the Conference on Disarmament has failed to adopt a
program of work due to the lack of political will for negotiations on
nuclear disarmament. To overcome this problem, the Commission should
recommend the early establishment of an ad-hoc committee on nuclear
disarmament.
The threat of use of nuclear
weapons by some possessor states is increasingly alarming. The
Commission should not turn a blind eye on such dangerous threats and
should send a strong message to these states by rejecting such illegal
and inhumane policies.
Mr. Chairman,
Non-proliferation
and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as recognized by the NPT, are of
high importance. These issues should be considered on their own merit
with due attention to the rights and obligations of member states under
relevant provisions of the NPT. Unfortunately, non-proliferation has
been manipulated by a few countries as a pretext to advance their
narrow national interests and to deprive developing countries of their
rights to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
The
negation of the nuclear disarmament obligations is not the only
challenge facing the NPT. Certain nuclear-weapons states under the
pretext of "non proliferation" have attempted to establish new
mechanisms and precedents to restrict and deny the inalienable rights
of States Parties under article IV of the NPT to develop and use
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Efforts to advance
non-proliferation are of utmost importance. However, the ill-intended
attempts made under the banner of non-proliferation are increasingly
pursued to deprive member states to use nuclear material, equipment and
technology for peaceful purposes. Such attempts will only exacerbate
the existing inequalities that are inherent in the NPT, and
consequently will lead to the erosion of the integrity of the Treaty
and the benefits of its membership. Ironically, the same states are
proliferating nuclear weapons horizontally and vertically by either
transferring the nuclear weapons technology and materials to
non-parties to the NPT or by developing new types of nuclear weapons or
modernizing them.
Thus, the Commission
needs to reflect on non proliferation in all its aspects and recommend
certain measures to ensure the critical balance between
non-proliferation obligations and the right to nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes. It should equally reflect on the followings:
•
to reiterate the inalienable rights of states parties to the fullest
possible exchange of nuclear material, equipments, technology for
peaceful purposes without any discrimination, and to enable the NPT
States Parties to exercise their full rights for developing and
producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under appropriate
international monitoring and supervision ;
•
to call on certain group of states to remove restrictions incompatible
with their relevant international obligations imposed on states parties
in transfer of nuclear material , equipment and technology for peaceful
purposes;
• to recognize the authority
of the IAEA as the sole international competent body to deal with the
verification of compliance of member states with their respected
safeguard obligations in strict observance of the provisions of the
IAEA Statute;
- to ensure full
universality of the NPT without a single exception, and in this regard,
to urge Israel, as the only one in the Middle East which has not yet
adhered to NPT to accede to it without delay and to place its
unsafeguarded facilities under the full scope of the Agency;
-
to reiterate the necessity to conclude without delay an internationally
legally binding instrument on the negative security assurances pending
the total elimination of nuclear weapons;
• to require all states to stick
to multilateralism to address issues of non-proliferation in all its
aspects;
•
to avoid abusing the UN bodies including the Security Council as an
instrument of pressure for depriving states parties from exercising
their inalienable rights;
• to
strengthen collective and coordinated efforts to prevent proliferation
by anyone and anywhere on a non-discriminatory manner and also to
strictly prevent the spread of nuclear weapons,
Mr. Chairman,
Let
me now turn to the issue of confidence building measures (CBMs) in the
field of conventional weapons. We are of the view that CBMs, if widely
applied by all states, could enhance stability, peace and security at
regional and international levels. However, it should be noted that
CBMs are of very complex and multifaceted nature. CBMs are widely
considered as voluntary measures among the concerned parties which
should be implemented bilaterally or multilaterally and should not be
abused nor turned to legally binding measures. Complexity of the issue
of CBMs originates from the fact that CBMs would not be effective and
universal if the cold war era security perceptions of some member
states continue to prevail. Almost two decades have passed since the
end of the cold war, but regrettably thousands of nuclear weapons
continue to exist as a means of terrorizing the non-nuclear weapon
states.
CBMs cannot and
should not be
seen in isolation from international security environment. While some
nuclear weapons states persistently seek absolute security by relying
on their nuclear weapons arsenals, it is unrealistic to believe that
our common goal towards general and complete disarmament can be
realized in a foreseeable future. Therefore, CBMs should be coupled
with simultaneous concrete steps towards elimination of nuclear
weapons. To attain such a noble goal, the international community must
pursue and advance disarmament in practice rather than in words.
IAEA
and Iran: In Focus - News
Center
+ IAEA:
Director General's Corner+
Tlatelolco Treaty"Latin
America and Caribbean Celebrate 40 Years as Nuclear-Weapon-Free
Zone..." "The
Treaty
set an important precedent in devaluing the role of nuclear weapons in
its zone of application –- thereby contributing to regional
peace and security by ensuring that Latin America and the Caribbean
remained free from nuclear weapons. Four more
nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ)
followed, with the
Pelindaba Treaty in Africa, the Rarotonga
Treaty
in the South Pacific, the
Bangkok Treaty
in Southeast Asia and the Treaty
of Semipalatinsk
in Central Asia in 2006."Today these five NWFZ cover between them
nearly two-thirds of the countries of the world and virtually the
entirety of the southern hemisphere. In effect, NWFZ constitute
important first steps to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world," THETlatelolco
TreatyCOULD BE A MODEL FOR
THE MIDDLE EAST
This
site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
I
am
making such material available in my effort to advance understanding
of issues of legal, political, ecological and humanitarian
significance. I believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
2 February 2008 
29 Nov 2007 - PressTV - 
Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans - 29 October 2007-
By IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent The
US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British
island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation
for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, according to military
sources. The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure
coincides
with
an "urgent operational need" request for £44m to fit racks to the
long-range aircraft. That would allow them to carry experimental
15-ton Massive
Ordnance
Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as
much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete. One MOP
- known as Big Blu - has already been tested
successfully at
the US Air Force proving ground at White Sands in New Mexico. Tenders
have now gone out for a production model to be ready for use in the
next nine months. The "static tunnel lethality test" on March 14
completely
destroyed
a mock-up of the kind of underground facility used to house Iran's
nuclear centrifuge arrays at Natanz, about 150 miles from the capital,
Tehran. Although intelligence estimates vary as to when
Iran will achieve the know-how for a bomb, the French government
recently received a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency
stating that Iran will be ready to run almost 3000 centrifuges in 18
cascades by the end of this month. That is in defiance of a UN ban on
uranium enrichment and would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon
within a year. 
first EU-OPEC energy dialogue at ministerial level was held
on 9th June 2005. The main areas of discussion were oil prices, greater
data transparency on stocks and investment needs. A work programme for
the future was agreed to further develop these issues. The
second EU-OPEC energy dialogue at ministerial level was held
in December 2005 in Vienna. The tightness on the refining sector and
the financial markets were still two areas of main
concern. The
third EU-OPEC energy dialogue at ministerial level was held
on June 2006. It focused on new technologies, especially on the capture
and storage of carbon dioxide. 
