Iran and the IAEA: The Road to “Gridlock” and an Uncertain Path Forward
A CNS Feature Story by Liviu Horovitz and David Peranteau
The iWonk has no time to write very often, but here some of the goodies he found on our favorite kid, the iRan, during the last few weeks. Happy reading.
Gary Samore put together a gang of nuclear pundits including Jim Walsh, Charlers Ferguson, Henry Sokolski, Michael Levi, Mitchel Reiss, Bruno Tertrais, Jon Wolfstahl, Bob Einhorn, and George Perkovich to discuss what to do about the iRran (CFR). Pretty impressive!
Just today, Greg Bruno has an excellent analysis on the impact of lower oil prices on Iran (CFR). This should give the next US president a lot of free space..
Albright’s shop has a new page on Iran, something like a clearing house on the program, pretty good graphics and some interesting background, all on one page (ISIS). Cool that ISIS uses the NTI profile for the history :O)
Akbar Ganji argues in Foreign Affairs that the real decision maker in Iran is not Ahma but Khami (FA). Did not read it, but it might be interesting, even if somewhat lengthy. Well, well, well, but the conclusion, something that unexpected ;o)
Clawson and Eisenstadt argue in the last number of Survival that the military option is feasiable and the US should better take it (Survival). Well, Einstein said it, and I agree: I am sure about the fact that space is infinite…
This is not that new, but interesting: Perkovich arguing that the US should give Iran one chance and than stop if the response is not coming (Carnegie). An old negotiations strategy, I just don’t know whether it’s not a bit too transparent…
West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has a paper by Felter and Fishman on Iran’s strategy in Iraq stating that the iRan has a lot of influence in the iRaq and the US should do something about it (WestPoint). What a surprise…
Finally, a bunch of folks got a meeting to put together a hawkish paper on the iRan, “the most significant strategic threat to the United States” (BipartisanPolicy). I would call this a great upgrade for our kid – almost as good as the Soviet Union two decades ago, yeah? :O)
Karim Sadjapour has a Carnegie Policy Brief asking “Iran: Is Productive Engagement Possible?” telling the next president what to do. Well, the answer is simple, namely YES, but the piece has a bit more than that. A bit of strategy, a bit of soft power, a bit of context – good Sunday read I suppose – if you finished the iWonk’s piece on the CNS website first :O)))
Else, if you’re bored this Sunday and don’t want to read or write any more, but cannot escape the attraction of doing something “nuclear”, watch this – to some degree connected to our dearest kid, the iRan :O))
This blog is taking a vacation for 9 weeks :O( The author is involved in a Russian immersion summer program and is not able to read and write every day about our favorite kid, the iRan. He appologizes for that – to you, the reader, and of course, to the iRan – for the lack of attention :O) Till soon
Iranian DM Mostafa Mohammad Najjar says in response to Mofaz the Iranian “armed forces are at the height of their readiness and if anyone should want to undertake such a foolish job the response would be very painful” (Reuters).
Solana will be in Tehran on Sunday, June 15, to deliver the 2006 updated proposal (PressTV). Schulte gives an interview in Baku saying Iran is trying to open up several secret plants (Trendaz), and Bush is in Europe to get support for his last Iran endeavors (Bloomberg).
Forden’s and Thomson’s plan from MIT to put an internationally run enrichment facility in Iran and control the technology starts to receive interest after 3 years of disapproval: Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Hagel, Edward Markey from the Hill, as we know the group of 3 around Pickering, and now even Cirincione, who until now dismissed the proposal. Even Kimball from ACT is considering it (BostonG).
I maintain that an approach along these lines is the only thing that the Iranians will accept and unless there is an interest in keeping this thing going, this is the solution the world will have to go for.
Larijani: Iran is not interested in prolonging this issue
Published June 10, 2008 Chattering , Rattling , Reckoning Leave a Comment
Larijani says “the Agency has submitted an ambiguous report. They might be pursuing a ‘One Thousand and One Nights’ diplomacy that they are continually playing for time” as Iran “worked with the Agency honestly and if they want to complicate the nuclear issue, they will make themselves some problems” and Iran is “not interested in prolonging the issue” (AFP). I don’t know who’s the target of his speech, but it is a bit strange: if now even Iran starts to play the card of “we had enough, let’s end it,” what comes next?
With Iran protesting and the UN and (VOA) oil prices going up 11 dollars almost just because of Mofaz’ fun in saying bombing becomes unavoidable, the deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai criticized the declarations sharply for the internal political instrumentalization (AHN) and Olmert distances himself too from the statement (Haaretz). Well, too much is too much, even for Israel.
International cooperation: Chavez makes fun of nuclear bicycles imported from Tehran and wants to give one to G.W. 🙂 (Fars).
Daniel Dombey from the FT believes that Bush will try to push the Europeans on sanctions and investment restraints on Iran during his visit this week (FT).
David Ignatius has an interesting article about the leader of the Quds Forces Qassem Soleimani arguing that it is him who controls the operations in the Middle East and attributing him a very rational and calculate approach (WP).
Even Graham Allison agrees that it is time to talk to Iran as anything else has failed (Boston Globe) and if you want some simple and straight forwards thinking about good and bad, have fun here (MET).
And finally, if you don’t sleep and want to be frightened a bit, read the opinion of this “scholar” from the AEI to see how Iran can be compared to Nazi Germany (or to Aliens) – “they are with us again” 🙂 (WSJ).
On Thursday, 6 June, Soltanieh reiterates the invitation to states and private companies to create a joint venture to enrich uranium in Iran and ads Tehran is considering the Pickering/Walsh/Luers proposal (Bloomberg). In Tehran, Iranian FM spokesperson criticizes Obama’s Israel statement as opportunistic and contrary to his “campaign claims to confront political lobbies in the US” (m&c).
Israeli transport Minister Shaul Mofaz says “if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it / attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable” (Reuters). Asked about a US position, the White House spokesperson answered “I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals. I think we’ve been pretty clear in recent weeks and months about our approach on Iran” (Reuters).
After a meeting with Rice, the Turkish FM Babacan says his country does not want Iran to have a nuke but believes the problem can be solved through political dialogue (Hurriyet).
On the last day of the BoG, US envoy to the Agency, Schulte, says “the questions that remain unanswered strongly suggest that Iran has undertaken a significant state-sponsored effort to develop nuclear weapons – an effort that Agency inspectors are not in a position to verify has halted” (AP). In a rare sign of convergence with the Western group that hints towards general concern with the Iranian program, the NAM argues that “in clarifying the alleged studies […] the Agency would act in accordance with its statute” (Reuters). Iranian ambassador Soltanieh denies that his government issued only empty denials arguing that Tehran turned over “more than 200 pages of explanations and documents” and held more than 70 hours of talks with Agency inspectors – “we left no question unanswered. We have done our job. This matter is over” (Reuters).
While very strong at AIPAC, Olmert leaves the White House after less than one hour saying “I went in with more question marks than I came out with regarding ways and means, the pressures of time and the resolve required to deal with the [Iranian nuclear] problem” (DEBKA).
Everybody goes today in the yearly pilgrimage to the wholly lobby of AIPAC :O)
On the Conservative side, Rice accuses Iran that it does not want to talk to the US and reiterates the necessity to deny Iran the nuke. Olmert holds all cards on the table with “the Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means” and “Israel will not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and neither should any country in the free world” (NYT / Reuters / RFE).
Somehow surprisingly, Obama has a very pro-Israel speech: “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable [and] Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” On negotiations he ads “I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States.” But on nukes: “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – everything” (Haaretz). Clinton supports Obama’s Israel policy (nice movie with her saying nice stuff about him).
At the BoG in Vienna, the US urges Iran to “abandon forever the pursuit of nuclear weapons” saying the IAEA’s evidence points overwhelmingly to such endeavors. The EU says Iran’s rejection to the evidence is “neither credible nor acceptable, given the quality of and quantity of the documents presented by the agency to Iran” (AP). Hinting to Washington’s refusal to allow the Agency to comprehensively share information with Tehran, Russia says only “objective and verified information” should be used in the investigation and Iran must have the chance to “carefully analyze the information” (AP).
Talking to the European parliament about his soon to come visit in Tehran, Solana says “I don’t expect miracles but I think it is important for us to keep extending a hand” (AP).
The IAEA BoG starts on 2 June in Vienna. In a tough opening statement, 
ElBaradei says the IAEA “understands that Iran may have additional information, in particular on high explosives testing and missile-related activities” and urges “full disclosure” (Reuters). The DG underlines the fact that the US provided only digital copies and restricted the sharing with Iran in order to protect its sources (Reuters).
After the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs implies Tehran might limit its cooperation with the Agency, Ahmadinejad says there is no need to review the cooperation with Vienna (Reuters) and Khamenei underlines that Iran does not want nukes but will not give up nuclear energy (Reuters).
In a demonstrative step, Iranian ambassador to New Delhi shares the “solution-plan” with foreign secretary Mehdi Nabizadeh (economictimes).
Solana is expected soon in Tehran to deliver his proposal around the middle of the month (Reuters / Reuters). Olmert is in the US, talks especially Iran (Haaretz) but tells AIPAC peace with Syria would be beneficial (bloomberg). At the same time, Tzipi Livni underlines that all options are open (AP).
For the interested, Jonathan Tirone listened to Vali Nasr on Iran in France over the weekend – the US should revise its attitude and initiate negotiations (bloomberg). Charles Schumer’s is a nice senator with a simple world view and straight-forward arguments – more pressure on Iran and more help from Russia (WSJ). Interesting questions raised and signs on the wall readings on the election of Larijani as the speaker of the parliament (chcagotribune).
The IAEA releases the its newest Iran report GOV/2008/15 on Monday, May 26, and David Albright’s shop promptly has it on line (ISIS).
The report confirms that Iran is feeding around 3300 IR-1 centrifuges with UF6Â – almost 4000 kg by February 2008 and testing IR-2s and IR-3s with nuclear material.
Confronted with information related to the green salt project, high explosives testing, and the missile re-entry vehicle project (16/17), Iran responded this info shows Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon, the documents were “forged”, “fabricated”, and “inconsistent”, and “Iran has not had and shall not have any nuclear weapons program.”
Iran denied any UF4 conversion experiments, acknowledged explosives testing but deemed them for civilian use, and refused to comment on the modification of the Shahab arguing that the shown proof was in electronic form and an easy forgery.
The Agency stated that Iran did not provide the information and access necessary to support its statements, assessed that Iran was probably hiding information, but concluded that it was not in possession of any document proving weaponization work – but for the uranium metal document Pakistan had in the meantime confirmed.
The IAEA concluded that it was able to verify non-diversion, but that Iran needed to provide more info – the last response was received only on May 23 and was not included in the report.
The rather hawkish Ms. Sciolino from NYT sees the report as “unusually blunt and detailed” and as accusing Iran (NYT) and US envoy Schulte says the report “shows in great detail how much Iran needs to explain, and how little it has” (AFP) while German FM Steinmeier says in Berlin “the ball is in the Iranian court” and if it is picked there “we get reasonable answers […] or the entry into talks […] is further delayed” (Reuters). Soltanieh of course says “once more it has been explicitly underlined that there has been absolutely no evidence regarding the diversion of Iran’s nuclear activities or materials toward military purposes” (Reuters).
Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom write that “such a heavy-handed “sticks” and “carrots” policy [of the current government] may work with donkeys but not with serious countries” , arguing that the current policy will lead to an Iranian nuclear weapon and “a successful approach […] has to accommodate [Iran’s] security interests and ours.” The article suggests negotiations and the prospect of accommodating Iran’s desire for a nuclear energy program while minimizing the possibility of a rapid military transformation – cool quote “the widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus” (WP).
Finally, Jeff Lewis has an interesting article about the IR-3 the Agency’s report mentions and interesting things about Scoops – well, yes, don’t worry, you will find out there what Scoops are :O) (ACW).
The iWonk took two weeks off to Romania after May 10 with lots of food, almost no Internet, and definitely no iRan. Let’s see what happened during this time with our favorite kid.
Around the middle of the month, an IAEA delegation headed by Herman Nackaerts held again expert level talks in Tehran with a crew headed by Vienna envoy Soltanieh (IRNA), a meeting the Iranian regarded as positive and underlined their cooperation with the Agency (Fars).
At the same time Iran handed EU’s Solana a new proposal (FarsNews) insisting on international consortia enriching in Iran (Reuters). Russian FM Sergei Lavrov suggested the P5+1 to provide security guarantees as part of the deal (RiaNovosti) but the White House excluded the idea (Reuters).
Just before the new IAEA report, the EU published that it prepared new sanctions against bank Melli but said it is waiting for the Iranian response to the P5+1 package (Reuters) Solana will deliver soon in Tehran (Bloomberg).
And again the US cacophony with Robert Gates suggesting track-two diplomacy with Iran (WP) and Bush saying in front of the Knesset “Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations” (AFP).
The P5+1 will present in the next few days the updated 2006 incentive package to Iran (AFP). Trita Parsi has a review of the past incentives packages and argues this one will not be a solution (IPS). At the same time, after approaching Russia with an alternative plan, Tehran will present it to the P5+1 by the end of next week (Guardian). And, if you’re not sleeping yet, Chicago Tribune put together where the candidates stay on Iran (ChTr).
Very interesting move. To me, with the US rattling of war, the European offer is just a sign to Iran and the world that carrots are still available – even if they are old and small… nobody really thinks they’re going to take it. As Tehran does not want to appear as the “bad guy” who’s too good for taking the offer, it prepares an alternative to be able to say “we want, we did our home-work, here is what we would take.” The Iranian offer obviously contains enrichment, the European doesn’t. Well, I’ve argued this before, but until the parties don’t agree on to talk a compromise, nothing will change.
London: P5+1 package for Iran to some degree agreed
Published May 6, 2008 Chattering , Rattling , Reckoning Leave a Comment
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband says on Friday that the P5+1 agreed on a package for Iran. Leaks suggest the package contains LWR’s, more clarity on the 2006 language on political cooperation, elaborates on the idea of an international conference on regional security and stronger cooperation in the energy field (IRNA).
The Russian Foreign Ministry answers with “Miliband’s statement reflects his own point of view rather than the collective opinion of the Iran-Six members, at least, it does not reflect our position [as] there was no discussion of new threats allegedly posed by the Iranian nuclear program or new approaches towards Iran during the recent ministerial meeting” (RiaNovosti) and Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini says no offer will be accepted if “violates [Iran’s] rights” (Xinhua).
While former Iraq inspector Scott Ritter says an attack on Iran is very probable, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, answers “I actually am very hopeful that we don’t get into a position where we have to get into a conflict” (rawstory). Whom to believe?
British MI6 head John Scarlett is going to go to Israel to talk to Mossad’s Meir Dagan on what Israel has on Iran (TimesOnline) and Shimon Peres says “a nuclear Iran will be a nightmare for the world” (AFP).
Leonard Spector and Avner Cohen argue that the intel community should be more outspoken on the risks posed by Iran and Syria (LA Times). The sky is still falling my friends, it is still falling…
And you can also “be obliterated” by a nice American called Benny Avni who wants to carry a big stick and says “MAD works for sane leaders who want their people to live, but how about a country led by mullahs who introduced the suicide bomb to modern warfare?” Cool, ha? (NY Sun).
Pyotr Goncharov argues that it brings nothing to demand suspension, as Iran went to far, and we have to adapt to this (RiaNovosti). I agree. Romanians and Russians think alike. Almost alike :O)
The interesting news for today is that Nuri al-Maliki and an Iraqi delegation goes to Tehran (NYT). In the meantime, Iran complains at the UN about Hillary’s “obliterating” words of love (BBC) – see what this lady says (Movie). Valentin Sobolev in Tehran says Russia believes Iran is “not involved in nuclear research for military purposes” but “must show more initiative and actively participate in talks with the Iran Six” (RiaNovosti). On the way to London, Rice does not believe that incentives will work with Iran (VOA).
ISIS: all candidates agree that Iran should not have a fuel cycle
Published May 1, 2008 Chattering Leave a CommentISIS asks the three US candidates what they think about Iran and they are all on the same page: Iran should stop and never restart. Just the tone is a bit different, McCain is very straight forward, Clinton is in the middle, and Obama is a bit more ambiguous (ISIS).
While I really like the people at ISIS, I think this statements before people get into office are not very productive – on what will they negotiate if they’re so decided that Iran should never have it? How will they achieve a compromise?
While Khamenei says “the Iranian people, thanks to God, will resist in the face of sanctions and economic blockades and will further intensify their progress” (AFP), the US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates does see the second carrier in the Gulf only as a “reminder” to Iran and not as an escalation towards Iran (Reuters) and Bush implies that the press relies on Syria last week was a “message” for Iran “how destabilizing a nuclear proliferation would be in the Middle East” (NYT).
The PrepCom continues and Rebecca has a second day review (Acronym) and if you’re still not sleeping, Jeff Lewis has a few comments on disarmament under the next president (SIPRI). And if you’re really not sleeping, you might try Pete Zimmerman’s WonkSchool Google Earth fun – much too wonky for me, ma friend (ACW).
Valentin Sobolev, the acting secretary of the Russian National Security Council (and a former KGB high official and close to Putin) is talking to AEO’s Gholamreza Aghazadeh and SNSC’s Saeed Jalili. Apparently the Iranians provide the Russians with the long announced proposal (PressTV), possibly including an internationalization of Natanz (Reuters). Not only is Olli staying in Tehran till Thursday while he was supposed to leave today, but the Swiss FM Micheline Calmy-Rey calls Jalili to encourage the proposal (Mehrs). Hmm, this smells interesting and hopefully we’ll know more tomorrow what that proposal is all about..
In the meantime, Ahma is in New Delhi to discuss pipelines with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh – a deal looks probable and the Indians think engagement is much better than containment (AP).
The PrepCom starts in Geneva, Syria is the most interesting topic, Chris Ford bashes the world and praises the American arms reductions, everybody bashes Iran and the Persians complain, well, the usual story… (Reuters). If you’re interested (and have no finals :O), Rebecca Johnson is nicely summing up the talks (Acronym), some young Germans interview a bunch of people (NPT Webcast), and other resources at Reaching Critical Will (RCW).
And if you’re really not sleeping, it’s interesting how blog discussions (ACW) get into the newspaper (NYT), and how the Arms Control community provides photo legends for journalists (NYT).
The main story at the end of this week is on a US intelligence briefing on the Hill on Syria’s reactor on the Euphrates and North Korea’s help. So goes the movie: the reactor was for Plutonium production and weapons geared, the DPRK helped with knowledge and people, and no nuclear material was yet processed before “a not mentioned someone” destroyed it. Here a short summary of what’s going on (FP). Jeffrey Lewis got the text of the briefing (ACW). He and Acton have interesting comments on the “Why now?” (ACW / ACW). Interesting is also Daniel Levy’s comment also on the reasons (PfP). Maybe William Arkin’s too (WP). The IAEA is again informed only a few hours before the media and pledges to look into the issue (Reuters).
In the meantime, on the Iranian front, after just a five days in Vienna, poor Olli is again going to Tehran (AFP). An incident at sea increases the tensions between Washington and Tehran (WSJ) – this looks familiar to me (see iWonk) but this time the entire story flies much more under the radar.
The talking goes on: Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says a conflict with Iran would be “extremely stressing” but not impossible, that the Pentagon is considering this option among other, and criticized Iran’s involvement in Iraq (WP), and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the NATO Secretary General, says “Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment capability in violation of its U.N. Security Council obligations is a serious concern not just for Iran’s neighbors but for the entire international community” (Reuters).
Finally, if you want something funny, related to Hillary’s obliteration statement, Phil Stephens’s take in the FT it the thing to read (FT).
Vienna: Iran agreed to clarify the alleged studies
Published April 24, 2008 Chattering Leave a Comment
With Olli just back from Tehran, the Agency’s spokeswoman says that “an agreement was reached […] on a process that aims to clarify the so-called alleged studies during the month of May” (Reuters) and ElBaradei calls this “a milestone” (IRNA).
While the Swiss freeze some additional assets (AFP), Ahmadinejad is going to India to talk pipelines. Quite interesting start, as the Indian foreign ministry responds to an American urge to press Iran on the nuclear issue that it did not need “any guidance” in managing its bilateral relations (Reuters).
Again, if you’re not sleeping, you might be interested in looking into Israeli Knesset members thinking about the Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf, bad, bad, bad Iran, and the traumatized US intelligence community (Haaretz).
Aren’t these people sometimes just a bit ashamed to bash about the “clearly evident wolf” with two German Dolphins at sea, land-based missiles, and a (probably badly functioning) missile-defense system?
Hillary Clinton: we would be able to obliterate Iran
Published April 23, 2008 Chattering , Rattling 1 Comment
Hillary finds a moment of love and says “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. […] In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them” (Haaretz). She adds “that’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic” (Reuters).
Cool! How is this better then the Iranian deputy commander-in-chief Mohammad Reza Ashtiani saying seven days ago “if Israel wants to take any action against the Islamic Republic, we will eliminate Israel from the scene of the universe” (Reuters)?
Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, is bashing Iran for spreading conspiracy theories about 9/11 in order to discredit Sunni terrorists (AP).
Well, besides the obviously cool fact that Ayman is scared that the Mullahs will get the credit, I think such statements should make people who have no time to read books maybe understand that Shia is not the same with Sunni, and Iran is not Al-Quaeda.
Olli Heinonen and his director for Safeguards Operations Herman Nackaerts met Soltanieh and Saeedi on Monday and Vaeedi on Tuesday (Reuters). Interesting that IRNA quotes all the time a “concerned diplomat” when talking about the meeting (IRNA).
Is that a good sign or a bad sign?
Italy says it will join the European sanctions on Iran (Haaretz) and Japan that it has frozen Iranian nuclear-related assets (PressTV).
Again, if you’re not sleeping or schocked to death by candidate Clinton, you might find interesting Pyotr Goncharov’s Russian take on the P5+1 meeting-for-sanctioning-process (RIAnovosti).
With Olli just arriving in Iran to discuss the US allegations (Reuters), Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy, says Iran will provide the Agency and the P5+1 with a proposal to solve the nuclear standoff (Xinhua).
Iran’s oil minister, Gholam Hossein Nozari, looses his patience with Shell’s and Total’s delay to start the development of phases 11 and 13 of the huge South Pars oil field and issues an ultimatum urging the two to decide before June. Russia’s Gazprom or China’s Sinopec are competitors believed to be eager to take over (Guardian).
The press finds out that Azeri customs at the Azeri-Iranian border crossing at Astara halted on 29 March a cargo of Russian heat insulators destined for Bushehr (Reuters).
Well, and if you’re not sleeping yet, here is how the Iranians see the US primaries (Time), and how Trita Parsi thinks there is enough space in the Middle East for the US and Iran (Asia Times).
I should study! But this is too funny to resist. Thanks to my Indian friend.
Bush meets Brows in DC and says the US position “is clear: that we’re going to work together along with other nations to make it abundantly clear to the Iranian regime that they must not have the capability of developing a nuclear weapon” and “if they learn how to enrich, it is knowledge which can be used to develop a nuclear weapon” but believes that “we can solve the problem diplomatically” with Brown promising new sanctions in the next weeks (Reuters).
Cool! You’ve got to say what you’ve got to say! What Bush says is “we have to make it abundantly clear that Iran does not have the right to enrich.” Sometimes I wonder whether this president has any lawyers around him… but then, his lawyers are not better, so with or without them…
The idea is simple: International law does not matter. Obligations don’t apply for the US and rights don’t apply for others. It’s only about power and power projection. We will force Iran to understand that we deny it a sovereign right. Oh, and not only the right to physically enrich, but we are arrogant enough to think we can deny someone the right of knowledge…
I would say, why don’t we just trash the NPT and have Bush write a statement that the US will nuke anybody that develops a weapon? Maybe Putin can sign one too. Just in case Bush is hesitant with his friends… Grrr… Half a year to go. I just hope the next administration takes international law more seriously… Benevolent hegemony, ha?
Olli Heinonen will be in Tehran on Monday to meet Javad Vaeidi (IRNA) and the Agency says they will talk about the alleged studies (Reuters).
Interesting enough, the Iranians let it leak already before Olli lands in Tehran that they see the alleged studies as resolved. Let us see what Olli comes up with.
See the statement of a Polish diplomat during Shimon Peres’ Europe lobby tour against our most beloved child, the iRan, in Haaretz.
ElBaradei says in Berlin the IAEA is well informed and Iran is advancing slow in the enrichment program (dpa) with only 3300 or 3400 P1s working (Reuters), while direct US talks with Iran might help resolve the security situation in the Middle East out of the “total mess” (bloomberg). An IAEA diplomat says Olli will go next week to Tehran to look into weaponization allegations and covert nuclear facilities (dpa).
Olmert says Israel is playing an important role but not leading the enormous efforts made by the international community to stop Iran’s nuclear quest – efforts that will succeed (AFP) and the Slovenian EU presidency urges Iran to sign the Nuclear Safety Convention for sharing information on Bushehr (AP).
Should you still have the energy, Calev Ben-David writes about what Israelis think to do about Iran when the Mullahs get the bomb (JP), and the Economist has an article that says nothing (new) (The Economist).
Iran Movies: James Acton at the New America Foundation
Published April 17, 2008 Chattering Leave a CommentJames Acton visits Jeff Lewis at the New America Foundation and talks about Iran. Maybe interesting also a talk 10 days ago on Iran’s new parliament, also at the NAF, with Daniel Levy and Ali Ansari from St. Andrews.
P5+1 meet in Shanghai on the deputy minister level and discuss an incentive package for Iran (VoA).
After bashing Bush’s Iran approach “a looser”, Hillary Clinton says she would engage in discussions at the lower level, but keep the leverage of sanctions (WP).
With the price of an oil barrel reaching $115, Iran’s oil minister Gholam Hossein Nozari openly expresses Tehran stance in the OPEC not to follow US and British demand for lowering prices (Forbes).
BloggingHeads: Joe Cirincione & Jacqi Shire talk Iran over skype
Published April 17, 2008 Chattering , Reckoning Leave a Comment
See the Joe and Jacqi plan at bloggingheads for half an hour. Joe bashes the Bush government a bit too much for my academic taste :O) and Jacqi thinks the whole world spins around nonproliferation, but it is an interesting discussion.
Unfortunately I think it is not as simple as these two experts want their watchers to believe – you just need a new government to talk without preconditions to Tehran, provide carrots, and everything is fine. The only thing they don’t agree about is Joe wants to leave them some centrifuges and Jacqi wants the electricity shut down at Natanz.
All is good if you keep it nice and simple…
The iRanWonk 