Group items tagged

A review of Iran policy that Mr. Obama ordered after taking office is still under way, and aides say it is not clear how long he would be willing to allow Iran to continue its fuel production, and at what pace. But European officials said there was general agreement that Iran would not accept the kind of immediate shutdown of its facilities that the Bush administration had demanded.

Administration officials declined to discuss details of their confidential deliberations, but said that any new American policy would ultimately require Iran to cease enrichment, as demanded by several United Nations Security Council resolutions.

If the United States and its allies allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for a number of months, or longer, the approach is bound to meet objections, from both conservatives in the United States and from the new Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Now, he contended, Mr. Obama has little choice but to accept the reality that Iran has “built 5,500 centrifuges,” nearly enough to make two weapons’ worth of uranium each year. “You have to design an approach that is sensitive to Iran’s pride,” said Dr. ElBaradei, who has long argued in favor of allowing Iran to continue with a small, face-saving capacity to enrich nuclear fuel, under strict inspection.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspectors would be a critical part of the strategy, said in an interview in his office in Vienna last week that the Obama administration had not consulted him on the details of a new strategy. But he was blistering about the approach that the Bush administration had taken. “It was a ridiculous approach,” he insisted. “They thought that if you threatened enough and pounded the table and sent Cheney off to act like Darth Vader the Iranians would just stop,” Dr. ElBaradei said, shaking his head. “If the goal was to make sure that Iran would not have the knowledge and the capability to manufacture nuclear fuel, we had a policy that was a total failure.”

If Mr. Obama signed off on the new negotiating approach, the United States and its European allies would use new negotiating sessions with Iran to press for interim steps toward suspension of its nuclear activities, starting with allowing international inspectors into sites from which they have been barred for several years.

By contrast, in warning against a more flexible American approach, a senior Israeli with access to the intelligence on Iran said during a recent visit to Washington that Mr. Obama had only until the fall or the end of the year to “completely end” the production of uranium in Iran. The official made it clear that after that point, Israel might revive its efforts to take out the Natanz plant by force.

A year ago, Israeli officials secretly came to the Bush administration seeking the bunker-destroying bombs, refueling capability and overflight rights over Iraq that it would need to execute such an attack. President George W. Bush deflected the proposal. An Obama administration official said “they have not been back with that request,” but added that “we don’t think their threats are just huffing and puffing.”

Israeli officials and some American intelligence officials say they suspect that Iran has other hidden facilities that could be used to enrich uranium, a suspicion explored in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. But while that classified estimate referred to 10 or 15 suspect sites, officials say no solid evidence has emerged of hidden activity.

Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at the Belfer Center at Harvard University, said in a interview on Monday that the Obama administration had some latitude in defining what constitutes “suspension” of nuclear work.One possibility, he said, was “what you call warm shutdown,” in which the centrifuges keep spinning, but not producing new enriched uranium, akin to leaving a car running, but in park. That would allow both sides to claim victory: the Iranians could claim they had resisted American efforts to shut down the program, while the Americans and Europeans could declare that they had halted the stockpiling of material that could be used to produce weapons.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking shortly after Khamenei, said Iranians deserved better leadership and pledged to support Britain in its standoff with Tehran. "Really, the Iranian people deserve better than the leaders they have today," he said at a news conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, pledging France's full support for Britain in the dispute over the embassy detentions.

Gary Samore, a former Clinton administration arms control negotiator who is expected to become Mr. Obama’s nonproliferation czar, has argued that any carrot offered to Iran should be accompanied by a bigger stick.

Aides to Mr. Obama say that Mr. Samore has favored offering Tehran warmer relations with the United States, including lifting certain American sanctions against Iran and assuring the Iranian leadership that the United States will not pursue regime change. (Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said in the past that he thought the United States should assure Iran that it would not pursue regime change.) But Mr. Samore has also argued that such an offer is not enough unless it comes backed by the threat of stronger sanctions from the United States, Europe, Russia and China, like, for instance, a ban on foreign investment in Iran’s oil and gas industry.

United Against Nuclear Iran, an organization dedicated to stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons

Several European diplomats said that France, Britain and Germany might be willing to consider sanctions if the Obama administration makes an effort to improve the atmosphere with Iran first.

American policy toward Iran is also likely to be complicated by presidential elections scheduled for June. An overture by the United States would raise two kinds of risks, experts say: that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran would benefit politically from such a gesture, and that he may choose to rebuff Washington to score political points before the voting.

“Coming out of the barrel like a jack-in-the-box, saying, ‘Meet us in two days in Geneva for talks,’ would be a mistake,” said Thomas R. Pickering, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs

Saddam also denied any connections to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who he called a "zealot," and cited North Korea as his most likely ally in a crunch, according to the documents.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has long argued to allow Iran to maintain a small face-saving nuclear enrichment program under the guise of "research and development."

Allowing such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, at least while negotiations continue, would involve strict IAEA inspections -- something which may give the international community the kind of insight into Iran's nuclear program which it has long sought. It would also give Iran the cover to come back to the table without claiming it never gave in to the West. Rather, Tehran can boast the international community came around to its point of view. Preventing Iranian enrichment may be an ultimate pipe dream, but officials hope the right package of incentives, coupled with the threat of tougher sanctions, which could cripple its stumbling economy, could deter Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb.

If adopted, the new strategy will undoubtedly be condemned by Israel, which has warned the U.S. that it has until the end of the year to put an end to Iran's uranium production before it takes matters into its own hands. However, moving beyond the issue of enrichment helps Obama inch closer toward engagement with Iran, something he promised during the campaign and has begun to undertake with small, albeit significant, steps, most noticeably his New Year's message to the Iranian people.

Those who watch Iran closely say Obama's outreach is being warmly received in the region. While the response from spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamanei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems vague at first glance, experts argue the regime is being quite conciliatory, even flirting with the U.S. overtures and opening the door for talks.

Now the administration is taking another leap, inviting Iran to several meetings on Afghanistan as a way to engage on issues of mutual interest. The U.S. is also seriously considering allowing U.S. diplomats around the world to interact with their Iranian counterparts and setting up a U.S. interests section in Iran.

Officials say not to expect any dramatic breakthroughs before the Iranians head to the polls to elect a new president in June. But Obama's conservative critics, including several Republican lawmakers, worry Obama is making it too easy for Iran to come back to the table and is giving credibility to Iran's defiant Ahmadinejad in his bid for re-election.

Ali Akbar Velayati, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's top adviser on international affairs, said Western countries did not want the Islamic state to have peaceful nuclear activities, state broadcaster IRIB said on its website.

Sarkozy, upping the stakes in the dispute with Tehran, said the powers would review the situation at a G20 meeting of developed and developing countries in Pittsburgh on September 24-25.

However, Sarkozy made clear Russia was still dragging its feet over the issue and had pushed for more time before considering a fresh round of sanctions.

Speaking to a large crowd in the holy city of Mashhad, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran had "no experience with the new American government and the new American president". One gesture the US administration could make would be to ease some sanctions on passenger aeroplanes and spare parts Cyrus, Tehran Iran views: Obama message "We will observe them and we will judge," he said. "If you change your attitude, we will change our attitude." In the speech, which was carried live by Iranian television, he said Iran was yet to see such a change. "What is the change in your policy?" he asked.

Speaking to a large crowd in the holy city of Mashhad, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran had "no experience with the new American government and the new American president".

Speaking to a large crowd in the holy city of Mashhad, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran had "no experience with the new American government and the new American president". One gesture the US administration could make would be to ease some sanctions on passenger aeroplanes and spare parts Cyrus, Tehran Iran views: Obama message "We will observe them and we will judge," he said. "If you change your attitude, we will change our attitude." In the speech, which was carried live by Iranian television, he said Iran was yet to see such a change. "What is the change in your policy?" he asked. "Did you remove the sanctions? Did you stop supporting the Zionist regime? Tell us what you have changed. Change only in words is not enough."

A Sunni opposition group known as Jundullah (God's Soldiers), which Iran links to al-Qaida and the US, claimed responsibility for the mosque bomb.

The Saudi-owned al-Arabiya television said a man claiming to represent Jundullah called it saying the bombing was a suicide attack aimed at Basiji forces, a religious militia, that were meeting in the mosque to co-ordinate election strategy.

Iran's leaders have repeatedly blamed US and Israeli "spy agencies" for arming and assisting insurgent groups, including dissident Kurds living in western Iran. They say the aim is to destabilise Iran and promote regime change.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and a strong, public backer of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bid to win a second term, added his weight to the claims. "No one can doubt that the hands of … some interfering powers and their spying services are bloodied by the blood of the innocent," he said.

Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's armed forces chief of staff, also blamed outside forces, pointing the finger at Britain in particular. "The attempts made by colonialism, Zionism and on top of them England for sowing discord between Shias and Sunnis have yielded no result," he said.

Any direct or indirect US involvement in fomenting pre-election tensions is considered unlikely, given Obama's new policy of engagement with Iran. Israel, which believes Iran poses an existential threat, takes a harder line.

Unconfirmed reports published in the US last year said the Bush administration obtained $400m in "off-the-books" congressional funding to finance covert operations aimed at assisting minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organisations inside Iran. It is unclear whether these alleged operations have continued since Obama took office.

The year-long study brought together six senior technical experts from both the United States and Russia to assess the military threat to Europe from Iran's nuclear and missile programs. The report's conclusions were reviewed by former defense secretary William J. Perry, among others, before being presented to national security adviser James L. Jones and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

The report acknowledges dramatic technological gains by Iran, and it predicts that the country could probably build a simple nuclear device in one to three years, if it kicked out U.N. inspectors and retooled its uranium-processing plants to make weapons-grade enriched uranium. Another five years would be needed to build a warhead that would fit on one of Iran's missiles, the panel says. U.S. intelligence agencies have made similar predictions; Israel maintains that Iran could build a bomb in as little as eight months.

The U.S.-Russian experts say Iran faces limits in developing ballistic missiles that could someday carry nuclear warheads. Its current arsenal is derived from relatively unsophisticated North Korean missiles, which in turn are modified versions of a Russian submarine-launched missile that dates from the 1950s. "We believe that these components were likely transferred to North Korea illegally in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when Russia was experiencing major political and economic chaos," one of the U.S. team members said in a separate commentary.

the country lacks "the infrastructure of research institutions, industrial plants, or the scientists and engineers that are needed to make substantial improvements."

They conclude that it would take Iran at least another six to eight years to produce a missile with enough range to reach Southern Europe and that only illicit foreign assistance or a concerted and highly visible, decade-long effort might produce the breakthroughs needed for a nuclear-tipped missile to threaten the United States.

Moreover, if Iran were to build a nuclear-capable missile that could strike Europe, the defense shield proposed by the United States "could not engage that missile," the report says. The missile interceptors could also be easily fooled by decoys and other simple countermeasures, the report concludes.

U.S. and European diplomats believe that hard-line elements inside Iran's political establishment used the Saberi case in a bid to sabotage any rapprochement with Washington.

The target also comes about ten weeks after the Iranian presidential election June 12, giving the U.S. some time to gauge the new Tehran administration. Current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is running for re-election, has at times publicly welcomed Mr. Obama's call for negotiations on the nuclear question. But Tehran continues to expand the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at its Natanz facility.

The U.S. Congress is debating legislation that would require the White House to sanction companies exporting refined petroleum products to Iran. Tehran imports roughly 40% of its gasoline despite having some of the largest energy supplies in the world.

All Iran's presidential candidates have said they will not abandon enriching uranium, but Tehran political insiders with knowledge of the talks say Iran could agree to a short-term "freeze for freeze" formula. Iran would then offer that Western powers can freely monitor Iran's program to ensure it is not turning military -- in return for sharing technology and expertise.

"The Americans will have to accept this offer, they have no choice," said Sadegh Kharazi, a former deputy foreign minister who remains involved in Iran's foreign policy. "Iran will not back down. From now on, let's all talk about how to form partnerships so it benefits both parties."

The benchmarks the U.S. and its allies are establishing also include signs Tehran will be willing to rein in its support for militant groups in the region.

Israel and key Arab allies have voiced concerns about the usefulness of diplomacy with Iran. The U.S. point man on Iran policy, Dennis Ross, was greeted with skepticism from Arab allies during a tour this month through Egypt and the Persian Gulf countries, said U.S. officials. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates., in particular, have expressed alarm over Iran's nuclear activities and its moves to support militant groups operating in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

Israel believes Tehran could be far enough advanced in its nuclear work by early next year to make protracted negotiations moot. Last week, Brig Gen. Michael Herzog, chief of staff to Israel's defense minister, publicly called at a conference in Washington for the Obama administration to set clear timetables and benchmarks for its Iran diplomacy. He reiterated statements by new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government that Jerusalem might take military action against Iran to end its nuclear threat. "When we say a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, we mean it," Mr. Herzog said. "When we say all options are on the table, we mean it."

“I tell people who worry about Lieberman that I worry too,” a senior Israeli diplomat said, requesting anonymity to speak freely of his boss.

Mr. Lieberman is one of the strongest advocates for rethinking Israel’s approach and rejecting what he views as failed past formulas. He wants tough sanctions against Iran as the first step. He told The Jerusalem Post in an interview published last week that the aim of the policy review was to make progress on Palestinian economic and political developments and “to take the initiative” in the region.

“People try to simplify the situation with these formulas: land for peace, two-state solution,” Mr. Lieberman told the newspaper. “It’s a lot more complicated.” He added that the real reason for the deadlock “is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers.” Nor, he said, is it the Palestinians. The biggest obstacle, he said, is “the Iranians.”

He, like the entire Israeli leadership, argues that since Iran sponsors Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, both of which reject Israel’s existence and seek its destruction, the key to the Palestinian solution is to defang Iran and stop it from acquiring the means to build a nuclear weapon.

Increasingly, the Arab world — especially Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan — seems worried about Iran as well. American officials who have recently visited those countries said that their leaders spoke about Iran in ways that were almost identical to what they heard from officials in Jerusalem. Therefore, the opportunity for a regional alliance against Iranian influence is great. But, they say, for Arab leaders to work alongside Israel on this, even quietly, requires demonstrable Israeli movement on ending its occupation of the West Bank by freezing or reducing settlements and handing over more power to the Palestinians.

Israel dislikes that formulation, arguing that the two issues need to be addressed separately. If they are linked, it is in the opposite way from what the West says. In other words, Israel says the occupation can be ended most easily once Iran is put in its place because then there will be much less risk of Iranian weapons being used against Israel from neighboring territory. Meanwhile, Israel says it cannot be expected to freeze settlement growth entirely.

The Iranian president had been campaigning in the province where the launching took place, and he promised that “in the near future we will launch bigger rockets with bigger reach.” He told a crowd that with its nuclear program, Iran was sending the West a message that “the Islamic Republic of Iran is running the show,”

Its range — believed to be more than 1,200 miles — is comparable to the liquid-fueled Shahab III, which Iran first obtained from North Korea. But a solid-fuel rocket, experts said, can be stored in mountains, moved around and reassembled, and fired on shorter notice, and thus could be harder for Israel or other nations to target.

Mr. Vick added that Tehran test-fired an even longer-range missile that used solid fuel, the Ashura, in late 2007 and several times afterward.“They’re designing a whole family of solids to replace their liquids,” he said in an interview.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told a Senate panel that she was concerned about a series of developments in Iran that could set off an arms race in the Middle East. She warned that if Iran obtained a nuclear capacity in the next several years, it would constitute an “extraordinary threat,” saying, “Our goal is to persuade the Iranian regime that they will actually be less secure” if it moves ahead with its nuclear program.

Mrs. Clinton was giving voice to a growing concern among administration officials, who have now had time to review the intelligence, that Iran seems to have made significant progress in at least two of the three technologies necessary to field an effective nuclear weapon. The first is enriching uranium to weapons grade, now under way at the large nuclear complex at Natanz. The second is developing a missile capable of reaching Israel and parts of Western Europe, and now the country has several likely candidates. The third is designing a warhead that will fit on the missile.

The greatest mystery surrounds the warhead program, which intelligence agencies said in late 2007 had been halted at the end of 2003. Asked Wednesday whether he had seen additional evidence to indicate that the weaponization program had been restarted, Mr. Samore declined to comment.

While most international attention is focussed on Iran's uranium enrichment activities, the inauguration of the new plant in Isfahan shifts attention to a parallel programme that also has outside observers worried, BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus reports. Once it is fully operational it could produce sufficient plutonium for two nuclear weapons a year, should Iran choose to separate the plutonium from the reactor's spent fuel, he says.

The newly-opened plant will produce pellets of uranium oxide that could be used to fuel a heavy-water reactor in Arak expected to be completed some time between 2011 and 2013.

It signals Iran has reached the final stage in the nuclear fuel cycle, analysts say.

"The Iranian nation has from the beginning been after logic and negotiations, but negotiations based on justice and complete respect for rights and regulations," Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying on Thursday. "One-sided negotiations, conditional negotiations, negotiations in an atmosphere of threat are not something that any free person would accept," he said.

Iran needs to "convince us all of the exclusively peaceful character of its nuclear programme", Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. On Wednesday, the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany said they would ask EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to approach Iran with the talks offer.

Signalling a policy shift, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would be a "full participant" in talks. "Obviously we believe that pursuing very careful engagement on a range of issues that affect our interests and the interests of the world with Iran makes senses," she said. "There is nothing more important than trying to convince Iran to cease its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon."

Mrs. Clinton also said the United States handed the Iranian delegation a letter requesting its intercession in the cases of two American citizens who are being held in Iran and another who is missing.

Some officials, including Mrs. Clinton, are skeptical that Iran’s leaders will ever embrace the American overtures. But reaching out, analysts say, keeps Iran on the defensive by demonstrating to the Europeans, the Russians and others that the United States is sincerely trying. And talking about Afghanistan is easier than confronting more divisive issues, especially Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Mrs. Clinton also reacted warmly to remarks delivered by Mr. Akhondzadeh about what Iran would do to aid reconstruction in Afghanistan and to cooperate in regional efforts to crack down on the booming Afghan drug trade, which is spilling across the Iranian border.

“The fact that they came today, that they intervened today, is a promising sign that there will be future cooperation,” she said. “The Iranian representative set forth some very clear ideas that we will all be pursuing together.”

Iran cooperated with the United States on Afghanistan in the days after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and administration officials still view it as one of the most promising avenues for a reconciliation. Mrs. Clinton had pushed for Iran to be included on the invitation list for the United Nations-sponsored conference.

Iran, which was a no-show at the last Afghanistan conference, in Paris, did not send an official of Mrs. Clinton’s level, unlike most participants. But by sending Mr. Akhondzadeh, a former ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, it was clearly not trying to avoid contact.

At the conference, Iran offered support and criticism of the Obama administration’s new policy on Afghanistan. It praised the focus on regional cooperation, but it argued that sending more foreign troops to Afghanistan would be ineffective.