Nuclear Iran will dominate 17 Mid-East nations - official

bobmazhari — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:42:10 +0000

Sat. 25 Mar 2006

Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Mar. 25 – Iran’s official news agency quoted a top Iranian official as saying that a nuclear Iran will dominate 17 Muslim countries in the Middle East.

“[The West] believes that if we master nuclear technology, we will be transformed into a regional superpower and will dominate 17 Muslim countries in this neighbourhood

Why No Nukes for Iran?

bobmazhari — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:40:06 +0000

Why No Nukes for Iran?Why No Nukes for Iran?

February 17, 2006
National Review Online
Victor Davis Hanson

How many times have we heard the following whining and yet received no specific answers from our leaders?

"Israel has nuclear weapons, so why single out Iran?"

"Pakistan got nukes and we lived with it."

"Who is to say the United States or Russia should have the bomb and not other countries?"

"Iran has promised to use its reactors for peaceful purposes, so why demonize the regime?"

In fact, the United States has a perfectly sound rationale for singling out Iran to halt its nuclear proliferation. At least six good reasons come to mind, not counting the more obvious objection over Iran's violation of U.N. non-proliferation protocols. It is past time that we spell them out to the world at large.

First, we cannot excuse Iran by acknowledging that the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, and Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons. In each case of acquisition, Western foreign-policy makers went into a crisis mode, as anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage by the ability to destroy Western cities.

A tragic lapse is not corrected by yet another similar mistake, especially since one should learn from the errors of the past. The logic of "They did it, so why can't I?" would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear. In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role. There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of Armageddon.

Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another. Although they are prone to fighting — imperial Athens and republican Venice both were in some sort of war about three out of four years during the 5th century B.C. and the 16th century respectively — consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind. In contemporary terms that means that there is no chance whatsoever that an anti-American France and an increasingly anti-French America would, as nuclear democracies, attack each other. Russia, following the fall of Communism, and its partial evolution to democracy, poses less threat to the United States than when it was a totalitarian state.

It would be regrettable should Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, or Germany go nuclear — but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's.

Third, there are a number of rogue regimes that belong in a special category: North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba, unfree states whose leaders have sought global attention and stature through sponsoring insurrection and terrorism beyond their borders. If it is scary that Russia, China, and Pakistan are now nuclear, it is terrifying that Kim Jong Il has the bomb, or that President Ahmadinejad might. Islamic fundamentalism or North Korean Stalinism might be antithetical to scientific advancement, but it is actually conducive to nuclear politics. When such renegade regimes go nuclear they gain the added lunatic edge: "We are either crazy or have nothing to lose or both — but you aren't." In nuclear poker, the appearance of derangement is an apparent advantage.

Fourth, there are all sorts of scary combinations — petrodollars, nukes, terrorism, and fanaticism. But Iran is a uniquely fivefold danger. It has enough cash to buy influence and exemption; nuclear weapons to threaten civilization; oil reserves to blackmail a petroleum hungry world; terrorists to either find sanctuary under a nuclear umbrella or to be armed with dirty bombs; and it has a leader who wishes either to take his entire country into paradise, or at least back to the eighth century amid the ashes of the Middle East.

Just imagine the present controversy over the cartoons in the context of President Ahmadinejad with his finger on a half-dozen nuclear missiles pointed at Copenhagen.

Fifth, any country that seeks "peaceful" nuclear power and is completely self-sufficient in energy production is de facto suspect. Iran has enough natural gas to meet its clean electrical generation needs for centuries. The only possible rationale for its multi-billion-dollar program of building nuclear reactors, and spending billions more to hide and decentralize them, is to obtain weapons, and thus to gain clout and attention in a manner that otherwise is not warranted by either Iranian conventional forces, cultural influence, or economic achievement.

Sixth, the West is right to take on a certain responsibility to discourage nuclear proliferation. The technology for such weapons grew entirely out of Western science and technology. In fact, the story of nuclear proliferation is exclusively one of espionage, stealthy commerce, or American and European-trained native engineers using their foreign-acquired expertise. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have no ability themselves to create such weapons, in the same manner that Russia, China, and India learned or stole a craft established only from the knowledge of European-American physics and industrial engineering. Any country that cannot itself create such weapons is probably not going to ensure the necessary protocols to guard against their misuse or theft.

We can argue all we want over the solution — it is either immoral to use military force or immoral not to use it; air strikes are feasible or will be an operational disaster; dissidents will rise up or have already mostly been killed or exiled; Russia and China will help solve or will instead enjoy our dilemma; Europe is now on board or is already triangulating; the U.N. will at last step in, or is more likely to damn the United States than Teheran.

Yet where all parties agree is that a poker-faced United States seems hesitant to act until moments before the missiles are armed, and is certainly not behaving like the hegemon or imperialist power so caricatured by Michael Moore and an array of post-September 11 university-press books. Until there is firm evidence that Iran has the warheads ready, the administration apparently does not wish to relive the nightmare of the past three years in which striking Iran will conjure up all the old Iraqi-style hysteria about unilateralism, preemption, incomplete or cooked intelligence, imperialism, and purported hostility toward a Muslim country.

In the greatest irony of all, the Left (who must understand well the nightmarish scenario of a fascist Iran with nuclear weapons) is suddenly bewildered by George Bush's apparent multilateral caution. The Senate Democrats don't know whether to attack the administration now for its nonchalance or to wait and second-guess them once the bombs begin to fall.

Either way, no one should doubt that a nuclear Iran would end the entire notion of global adjudication of nuclear proliferation — as well as remain a recurrent nightmare to civilization itself.

- Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

Merkel Says Iran Threatens Entire Democratic World

bobmazhari — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:35:02 +0000

Merkel Says Iran Threatens Entire Democratic World

January 29, 2006
Reuters
Louis Charbonneau

JERUSALEM -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the start of her first visit to Israel on Sunday that Iran threatens not only the Jewish state but the entire democratic world, one of her strongest statements to date.

Merkel spoke after meeting interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who expressed Israel's concern at Iran's nuclear programme. Israel, the United States and the European Union accuse Iran of trying to build an atom bomb. Tehran denies this.

"Iran is not just a threat to Israel, but also to the democratic countries of this world," Merkel said at the start of a two-day visit to Israel.

She said Germany and Israel were in total agreement when it came to the subject of Tehran's plans to produce nuclear fuel by enriching uranium, a process of purifying uranium for use in atomic power plants or weapons.

"I don't see the slightest difference in the views of Germany and Israel," Merkel said. "It is clear that Iran should not get the ability to enrich uranium."

Israel sees Iran's nuclear programme as an "existential threat" and has even hinted that it could use military force to prevent Tehran from getting a bomb.

Merkel also condemned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his anti-Israeli remarks. Ahmadinejad has said the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map" and doubted that six million Jews had been killed by the Nazis during World War Two.

"It's unacceptable that Iran's president rejects and falsifies history," she said.

Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany punishable with a prison term of up to five years.

Germany, France and Britain have been trying for more than two years to persuade Tehran to give up enrichment in exchange for political and economic incentives but Iran has refused.

The EU3 have now joined Washington in calling for the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, to take up the matter. On Monday, senior EU3 officials meet with U.S., Russian and Chinese officials in London to discuss Iran.

OLMERT GRATEFUL FOR GERMAN SUPPORT

Olmert thanked Merkel for supporting Israel on the question of Iran's nuclear programme.

"I would ... like to thank you for your position on Iran. It is a topic that causes great concern here in Israel," he said.

Olmert, who has been acting Israeli prime minister since Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke on Jan. 4, also thanked her for shunning the Islamist militant group Hamas, which won last week's general election in the Palestinian territories.

Although she will not meet with any Hamas members, Merkel will meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Monday. This will make her the first EU leader to visit the Palestinian territories since the election.

Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and the group has carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings in Israel since the start of a Palestinian uprising in 2000.

She was also due to meet President Moshe Katsav and Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud party who is challenging Olmert in Israel's forthcoming general election.

Merkel, who grew up in Germany's formerly communist East which never recognised Israel, recalled that 2006 is the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Germany.

She said Berlin remained totally committed to its "special relationship" with the Jewish state. Protecting and supporting Israel, which acquired statehood in 1948, has been a cornerstone of postwar German foreign policy.

Earlier on Sunday, German junior defence minister Peter Eickenboom confirmed that her government was sticking to the previous administration's plan to help Israel buy two submarines, according to German MDR radio.

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran

bobmazhari — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:20:17 +0000

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran

By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 12 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - 's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"The French president uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games," IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.

Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is peaceful.

Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2 1/2-year freeze. Germany, France and Britain said two days later that talks aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral.

Israel's Mofaz said sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program stood as the "correct policy at this time."

In Germany, Jung called himself "confident that there will be a diplomatic solution in the case of Iran."

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.

Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks and transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection against possible U.N. sanctions.

Sheibani backed away Saturday from his statement that the transfers were already underway, and Iran's Central Bank said there had been no change in its currency policy.

Estimates put Iranian funds in Europe at as much as $50 billion

Ahmadinejad Has Won the First Round, But Will He Win the Match

bobmazhari — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:07:52 +0000

Ahmadinejad Has Won the First Round, But Will He Win the Match

20/01/2006

Amir Taheri

was born in Iran and educated in Tehran, London and Paris. Between 1980 and 1984 he was Middle East editor for the London Sunday Times. Taheri has been a contributor to the International Herald Tribune since 1980. He has also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Taheri has published nine books some of which have been translated into 20 languages, and In 1988 Publishers'' Weekly in New York chose his study of Islamist terrorism, "Holy Terror", as one of The Best Books of The Year. He has been a columnist Asharq Alawsat since 1987

Previous Articles
	Iraq: Three Reasons for Optimism, But Dangers Still Ahead
	Where American Self Loathing Meets Arab Conspiracy Theories
	A Year of Good and Bad News, But a Good Year
	The Iraqi Election and the Heroism of Ordinary People
	Iraq and the Arab "Wait and See" Strategy
	The Future of US Foreign Policy: A debate rages in Washington
	Palestine: A Week of Good News, but Will It Last?
	Withdrawal from Iraq ? Here Is the Timetable
	A Space of Freedom Where Islam Can Flourish
	France and the Fruits of Multiculturalism

Let’s make no bones about: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won the first round of the match that he had tried hard to start against the major Western powers since his election last year. He wanted a confrontation and he has ended up getting one.

The European Union trio- Britain, Germany and France- and the United States, are now exactly where Ahmadinejad wanted them to be at this moment.

If they do nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear programme, Ahamdinejad will end up having his “nuclear surge capacity

U.N. Seeks Interview With Syrian President

bobmazhari — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:58:54 +0000

U.N. Seeks Interview With Syrian President

By HUSSEIN DAKROUB, Associated Press

BEIRUT, Lebanon - U.N. investigators pressed the Syrian government to let them question the president and foreign minister about the assassination of a former Lebanese leader, a spokeswoman for the inquiry said Monday

Nasra Hassan, who speaks for a U.N. commission heading the probe, also said investigators want to interview former Syrian Vice President Abdul-Halim Khaddam "as soon as possible."

Khaddam alleged in a television interview broadcast Friday from Paris that the Syrian president had threatened former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri several months before Hariri was assassinated in a Feb. 14 truck bombing.

"The U.N. commission has already sent a request to interview Syrian President Bashar Assad and Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa, among others," Hassan told The Associated Press.

"The commission is waiting for a response from the Syrians," she said. She refused to say when the request was made.

There was no immediate Syrian government comment on the request, the second time investigators have asked to meet with the president. The first time was in July and Syrian officials refused.

The commission has said several people whom Hariri spoke to after he met Assad in August 2004 said he told them the Syrian leader had threatened him over his opposition to extending the term of Lebanon's pro-Syrian president.

Syrian officials, including al-Sharaa, have denied any threat was made.

But after Khaddam's interview, Syria's ruling Baath Party stripped him of membership and joined parliament in demanding his trial on a charge of high treason, the official news agency SANA reported Sunday.

While Khaddam, who is in France writing a book, said Friday he ultimately planned to return to Syria with his family, it was unclear if he would go back facing a treason charge. Conviction would bring the death penalty.

"Khaddam has joined the band of enemies who are targeting the country and its attitudes," the Baath Party said. "Khaddam has betrayed the party, the country and the (Arab) nation. The National Leadership has decided to dismiss Khaddam from the party and put him on trial."

In two interim reports published late last year, the commission accused Syrian and Lebanese intelligence officials of being involved in Hariri's killing. In an interview with the media, the outgoing commission chairman, Detlev Mehlis, has said Syrian "authorities" were behind the assassination.

Syria has repeatedly denied the charge and tried to discredit those who testified to the commission.

The assassination of Hariri, in a blast that killed 20 other people in central Beirut, was a turning point in modern Lebanese history.

As he was seen as a quiet opponent of Syrian influence in Lebanon, his killing provoked mass demonstrations against Syria. Combined with international pressure on Syria, these protests forced Damascus to withdraw its troops from Lebanon in April, ending a 29-year military presence.

But the bombings targeting anti-Syrian figures have continued, with at least 14 attacks on prominent Lebanese since Hariri's death. Lebanon has asked the United Nations to investigate those as well, but the world body has declined.

Is Washington Planning a Military Strike against Iran?

bobmazhari — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:53:20 +0000

Is Washington Planning a Military Strike Against Iran ?

December 30, 2005
Spiegel Online
Spiegel

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.

It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.

German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.

The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.

According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.

DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.

In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

Links to al-Qaida?

According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map") have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans.

The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."

Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets.

At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting -- it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war."

How great is the threat?

So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.

Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.

Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour -- an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter -- but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike.

Skepticism in Ankara

Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing.

Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself.

At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran -- Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe.

Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from heart surgery. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task.

The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board -- either as an active or passive partner.

It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region.

Iran Rejects Russian Nuclear Offer

bobmazhari — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:40:38 +0000

Iran Rejects Russian Nuclear Offer

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The Kremlin too is making an effort to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran

Iran on Sunday rejected an offer from Russia for the Islamic republic to conduct uranium enrichment activities on its soil, foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.

"We have still not received the concrete offer, but it is clear that we will accept positively the propositions and the plans that recognize the right of the Islamic republic to carry out enrichment on its own soil," he told reporters.

Russia on Saturday had said its proposal to create "on Russian soil a joint Russo-Iranian undertaking to enrich uranium still stands," despite earlier indications from Tehran that it was not interested. The Russian embassy in Tehran put the suggestion put to the Iranian government on Saturday, the Russian foreign ministry said.

Search for a solution

"This proposal represents Russia's contribution to the search for a solution acceptable to all in the context of the settling of the situation... by political and diplomatic methods," it said in a statement.

The Europe Union wants Iran to accept the Russian idea that enrichment operations should take place in Russia without the direct involvement of Iranian scientists.

EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany restarted talks Wednesday with Iran over Western concerns about Tehran's nuclear program and agreed to meet again in January.

Asefi, however, refused to confirm January 18 as the date for resuming negotiations. "It is one date among others. But it is certain that the negotiations will restart in January," he said.

Syria agrees to hide Iran nukes

bobmazhari — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:17:18 +0000

Syria agrees to hide Iran nukes

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

LONDON ? Syria has signed a pledge to store Iranian nuclear weapons and missiles.

The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported that Iran and Syria signed a strategic accord meant to protect either country from international pressure regarding their weapons programs. The magazine, citing diplomatic sources, said Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions.

Iran also pledged to grant haven to any Syrian intelligence officer indicted by the UN or Lebanon. Five Syrian officers have been questioned by the UN regarding the Hariri assassination, Middle East Newsline reported.

"The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis," Jane's said.

Flashback: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

The accord also obligated Syria to continue to supply the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah with weapons, ammunition and communications. Iran has been the leading weapons supplier to Hizbullah, with about 15,000 missiles and rockets along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

The accord, negotiations of which began in 2004, was signed on Nov. 14 and meant to prepare for economic sanctions imposed on either Iran or Syria. Under the accord, Jane's said, Iran would relay financial aid to Syria in an effort to ease Western sanctions in wake of the UN determination that Damascus was responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Iran also pledged to supply a range of military aid to Syria. Jane's cited technology for weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms, ammunition and training of Syrian military.

Teheran would seek to upgrade Syrian ballistic missiles and chemical weapons systems. Under the accord, Iran would also be prepared to operate "advanced weapon systems in Syria during a military confrontation." Jane's said.

"The new strategic accord is based on the existing military MoUs, with the addition of the sensitive chapter dealing with cooperation in times of international sanctions or military conflict," Jane's reported.

Iran Not Just Israel's Problem

bobmazhari — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:53:19 +0000

Iran Not Just Israel's ProblemNot Just Israel's Problem

December 20, 2005
The Jerusalem Post
Amir Taheri

The way Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tells it, the Islamic Republic is well on the way to establishing itself as "the leader of the Muslim world" in what he describes as "the coming clash of civilizations."

In a speech at a teachers training college in Teheran last Sunday, Ahmadinejad claimed that the Islamic Republic had already won the first round against "arrogant Crusader-Zionist powers" led by the United States.

One sign of that victory, according to Ahmadinejad, is the decision by the European Union trio of Britain, Germany and France to resume negotiations on the Iranian nuclear dossier. The trio had walked out of the talks five months ago and stated it would not return until Iran stopped uranium processing at a plant in Isfahan. Well, Iran did not stop, forcing the Europeans to eat humble pie and return to the negotiating table. Teheran's tactic of talking while continuing the nuclear project seems to be working.

"The Europeans have returned with their tails between their legs," says Shariat Madari, editor of the daily Kayhan and a key supporter of Ahmadinejad.

There is no doubt that government propaganda that emphasizes Ahmadinejad's macho style as juxtaposed against Western "cowardly arrogance" has helped boost his populist base. And, engaged as he is in a power struggle against a coalition of mullahs and business tycoons, Ahmadinejad may well need the boost.

Nevertheless, the macho style and the incendiary language that Ahmadinejad uses have not been as cost-free as his supporters pretend.

In fact, all that Ahmadinejad has achieved is to return the Islamic Republic to the isolation it suffered from during its early days when American diplomats were held hostage at the US Embassy in Teheran.

The first sign of that isolation came last September when France, Germany and Austria politely informed Teheran that earlier "agreements in principle" to welcome Iran's new president on state visits to Paris, Berlin and Vienna had been kicked into the tall grass. All three had unrolled the red carpet for Ahmadinejad's predecessor, the mullah Muhammad Khatami who, as president, had managed to pull the wool on European eyes as to the true nature of the Islamic Republic.

France, Germany and Britain had hoped that Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a business man-cum-mullah, would win last June's Iranian election and did not expect to face Ahmadinejad. The invitations issued had been for Rafsanjani, not Ahmadinejad.

That setback was followed by Washington's decision to deny visas to the Speaker of the Islamic Majlis (parliament) and a group of 12 deputies to attend the annual session of the inter-parliamentary union in New York. This was the first time that such a humiliation was being inflicted on the Khomeinist regime.

The Islamic Majlis Speaker, Ghulam-Ali Haddad-Adel, did manage to get visas for other capitals. But wherever he went he got the cold shoulder. In Strasbourg the president of the European Parliament refused to see him and in Brussels the Speaker of the Belgian parliament cancelled a meeting at the last minute. Last week in Moscow, Hadad-Adel was forced to cancel his address at the Russian Parliament because not a single member turned out for the occasion.

AHMADINEJAD'S adventurous, not to say weird, foreign policy has done more damage to the Islamic Republic closer to home. Almost 15 years of efforts to build a relationship with Saudi Arabia have been annulled. Earlier this month Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah Ibn Abdul-Aziz hosted an emergency summit of Muslim leaders in Mecca in which Ahmadinejad was also present. But Teheran's demand that Ahmadinejad be allowed to extend his visit by a day or two as guest of the king were politely refused by the Saudis.

Worse news for Ahmadinejad came a few days after the Mecca summit when leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) met in Abu Dhabi and agreed to a "joint response to Iran's problematic approach to a number of issues."

One key issue, according to GCC's Secretary-General Abdul-Rahman al-Attiyah is the Islamic Republic's "nuclear program."

Al-Attiyah has made it clear that the GCC has "deep concern" about the entire Iranian nuclear project even if it were, as Teheran claims, limited to civilian purposes.

The GCC's concern is not fanciful.

Iran's first nuclear power station, expected to go on stream next year, is located at the Bushehr Peninsula on the Persian Gulf. The whole region is one of the most active earthquake zones in the world. A study by Stanford University, conducted in the 1970s under the Shah, warned that tremors measuring more than seven on the Richter scale could destroy the nuclear power station as designed by the German company Siemens.

The project, abandoned in 1978 and half destroyed by Iraqi bombing in 1980, was revived in 1989 with the help of Russian companies. Teheran claims that design changes have been made and that the future power station would resist tremors of more than seven on the Richter scale. That claim, however, is disputed in a report presented by the Seismological Institute in Teheran to President Khatami in 2000. Attempts at holding a parliamentary hearing on the report over the past five years have been scotched by both Khatami and Ahmadinejad on the grounds of "national security."

THE GCC Arabs have every reason to be worried. Between 40 and 100 per cent of the GCC states' population live in areas that would be directly affected by any nuclear catastrophe at Bushehr. Qatar, sticking out like a thumb across the Persian Gulf, is located just opposite the Iranian nuclear power station. More than 80 per cent of the GCC's oilfields are also within the radius of danger.

Since the Persian Gulf is a shallow body of water - nowhere deeper than 90 metres - any nuclear pollution could inflict damage lasting centuries. An "incident" of the kind seen at Chernobyl could halt shipping and cut the flow of almost 25 per cent of the world's daily supply of oil. It could also render the offshore gas deposits of Qatar and Iran, the second largest in the world, unusable for centuries. As al-Attiyah has pointed out such an incident could inflict "incalculable damage" on all aspects of the environment in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Indian Subcontinent. Iran itself would be less affected because less than 10 per cent of its population lives along the coastline.

Even more worrisome for the GCC Arabs is the fact that all of the 25 nuclear power stations that Iran plans to build in the next decade or so will be located in areas close to GCC territory. The second Iranian nuclear power station is under construction at Dar-Khuwayn on the River Karun in Khuzestan, a stone-throw from both Kuwait and Iraq. The third, still in the drawing room, is to be built on the Jask Peninsula on the Gulf of Oman, opposite the Sultanate of Oman.

Dotting an earthquake-prone zone with so many nuclear power stations is reason enough for concern. But the problem does not end there. It is now certain that the Islamic Republic is determined to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons, launching an arms race with unforeseeable consequences. It is unlikely that all those concerned would sit back and watch as Mr. Ahmadinejad pushes the region towards environmental risk and, perhaps, even war. He may well laugh at what he sees as the Europeans' "lack of a backbone." And, like the man in the famous anecdote, he may even say: So far, so good!

But the kind of game he is playing often ends in grief. Regimes like his do not know when and where to stop, until they hit something harder than themselves. And then it is too late.

The writer, an Iranian author and journalist, is editor of the Paris-based Politique Internationale.

bob mazhari

Nuclear Iran will dominate 17 Mid-East nations - official

Why No Nukes for Iran?

Merkel Says Iran Threatens Entire Democratic World

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran

Ahmadinejad Has Won the First Round, But Will He Win the Match

U.N. Seeks Interview With Syrian President

Is Washington Planning a Military Strike against Iran?

Iran Rejects Russian Nuclear Offer

Iran on Sunday rejected an offer from Russia for the Islamic republic to conduct uranium enrichment activities on its soil, foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.

Syria agrees to hide Iran nukes

Iran Not Just Israel's Problem