 Back in December, one report stated: "The [Obama] administration had given a rough deadline of the end of 2009 for Iran to respond to an offer of engagement and show that it would allay world concerns about its nuclear program." It's 2010 now, and Operation "Don't Just Do Something, Sit There!" continues. "Iran rejects heart of nuclear proposal," by George Jahn for the Associated Press, January 19: VIENNA - Iran has told the head of the U.N. nuclear agency that it does not accept an international proposal committing it to quickly export most of the material it would need to make a nuclear warhead, diplomats said Tuesday. For months, Iranian officials have used the media to criticize the plan backed by most of the world's major powers and to offer alternatives to one of its main conditions -- that the Islamic republic ship out most of its stock of enriched uranium and then wait for up to a year for its return in the form of fuel rods for its Tehran research reactor. While critical of such statements, the United States and its allies noted that Iran had yet to respond to the International Atomic Agency regarding the plan, first drawn up in early October in a landmark meeting in Geneva between Iran and the six world powers, and then refined later that month in Vienna talks among Iran, the U.S., Russia and France. But Iran now also has told the IAEA -- which chaired the Vienna talks -- that it wants an alternative to the plan. Its version effectively rejects the key demand that it agree to a tight timetable in shipping out most of its enriched uranium supply, said the diplomats. The talks in Vienna came up with a draft proposal that would take 70 percent of Iran's low-enriched uranium to reduce its stockpile of material that could be enriched to a higher level, and possibly be used to make nuclear weapons. That uranium would be returned about a year later as refined fuel rods, which can power reactors but cannot be readily turned into weapons-grade material. Iran maintains its nuclear program is only for the peaceful purpose of generating energy. The Geneva talks grouped the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany around the negotiating table with Iran. Diplomats from three of those big powers said Tuesday that Iran's counterproposal to the IAEA was essentially a rehash of an already publicly floated offer that fell far short of the six nations' expectations.... But hey, it bought them more time. With thanks to JihadWatch 
 The failure of the six key powers at the UN to levy new sanctions on Iran was hailed on Monday by Iran as a sign of increased rationality in the discussion over its disputed nuclear program. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters in a press conference that the lack of a decision over new sanctions means that Iran can continue working with the international community to allay concerns over the program. Iran is "hopeful and ready to contribute to this rationality so that it will move in the right direction and reach the appropriate results," he said. Mottaki added that "we now observe narrow stripes of rationality" by the foreign powers over the nuclear issue. Iran argues that its nuclear program is aimed at creating a peaceful energy network to serve its growing population. The US and other nations believe the goal of theprogram is to create weapons. The five members of the security council - the US, Britain, France, China and Russia - as well as Germany met on Saturday, but could not agree on levying a fourth round ofsanctions on Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki delivers a speech at a conference on the Persian Gulf, in Teheran, Monday.
The United States and its Western allies have been pushing for the new sanctions. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday warned that Iran will face new sanctions if it doesn't change tune on its nuclear program. But Russia, and especially China, are skeptical of any new sanctions and have been holding out for further talks with Iran. As a result, the six powers have had to tread carefully to preserve a unified position. The US and its allies are concerned at Iran's lack of cooperation with the UN nuclear agency and with its response to a resolution adopted by the agency's board of governors on November 27 which demanded that Teheran immediately stop building a secret uranium enrichment plant in Qom and halt further enrichment efforts. The six nations are also concerned "at Iran's failure to take up the IAEA proposed agreement" to ship most of its uranium - up to 2,600 pounds (1,200 kilograms) - abroad. The uranium would then be enriched to higher levels in Russia, turned into fuel rods in France and returned to power a research reactor in Teheran that produces medical isotopes. The material in the fuel rods cannot be enriched to higher levels, denyingIran the ability to use it to make weapons. JPost
 An Egyptian daily newspaper has published an article praising Israel for preventing Iran from completing its proposed nuclear facilities.
The article claims the Israeli intelligence service Mossad has carried out assassinations and acts of sabotage in recent years to prevent the facilities being completed.
The daily newspaper Al-Ahram, in its Saturday edition, says Mossad chief Meir Dagan has led the charge against Iran, and without him the Islamic Republic's nuclear plants would have been completed years ago.
"Over the past seven years, he has worked in silence, away from the media," the op-ed article says. "He has dealt painful blows to the Iranian nuclear program, he is the Superman of the Jewish state."
The Egyptian newspaper cited assassinations, inciting of opposition protests, the carrying out of acts to embarrass Iran's leaders, and covert attacks against nuclear facilities, among the list of achievements by the Mossad chief.
The article also lauds Dagan for his, "many bold victories," against Syria, Hezbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and praises the Israeli intelligence service's wisdom for not admitting its involvement in the various acts it orchestrated.
 SUPPORTERS of Iran's regime yesterday hijacked the funeral of a nuclear scientist killed in a mysterious bomb attack as it sought to bolster its claim that he was murdered by foreign agents. Hundreds of government loyalists surrounded Masoud Ali-Mohammadi's body as it was carried from his home in northern Tehran.
State-controlled television showed them waving Iranian flags and chanting anti-American and antiIsraeli slogans. Opposition websites reported scuffles between security forces and members of the so-called Green Movement, who also turned up to mourn but were held back. They believe that the regime killed Dr Ali-Mohammadi, on Tuesday because he had switched his allegiance to Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition leader. Unconfirmed reports claimed that security forces kept Dr Ali-Mohammadi's family away from the body. The regime has spent the past three days vigorously promoting the story that Dr Ali-Mohammadi, 50, was killed by foreign enemies with the help of Iranian "mercenaries". On Wednesday Ali Larijani, the parliamentary speaker, blamed America and Israel for the attack. "We had clear information that the intelligence apparatus of the Zionist regime and the CIA wanted to implement terrorist acts," he said. However, the regime's narrative is undermined by the lack of any evidence that Dr Ali-Mohammadi was contributing to Iran's nuclear programme, as well as by his declared support for the opposition. Dr Ali-Mohammadi, who taught at Tehran University, specialised in particle physics and was not known to Western officials or agencies which monitor Iran's nuclear programme. He was one of 420 academics who signed a statement of support for Mr Mousavi during the presidential election campaign last June. Two former presidents, the reformist Mohammed Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani, have issued statements calling Tuesday's bombing an act of terrorism - but by not blaming Israel or America they gave the clear impression that they were blaming the regime. The Australian
 IRANIAN nuclear scientist Massoud Ali Mohammadi was killed today in a rare bomb attack in Tehran which state media quickly blamed on "counter-revolutionaries" and foreign powers. MrMohammadi, a lecturer at Tehran university, died when a bomb strapped to a motorcycle was triggered by remote control outside his home in the northern Tehran neighbourhood of Qeytariyeh, state media said. Iran's state broadcaster said Mr Mohammadi was "assassinated in a terrorist act by counter-revolutionaries and agents of the arrogance," without naming any sources. Iranian officials usually refer to the United States and some other Western powers as the "global arrogance". Tehran prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi told the ISNA news agency that Mr Mohammadi was a lecturer in nuclear energy and said the booby-trapped bike was parked outside his house and exploded as he was getting into his car. Bomb attacks are rare in Iran although several security officials and members of the elite Revolutionary Guards have been killed in bombings by rebels in restive Sistan-Baluchestan province in eastern Iran. A witness said today's explosion was a "strong blast breaking window glasses in neighbouring houses and cars." Iran's state-run Arabic-language TV Al-Alam identified Mohammadi as a "hezbollahi" teacher -- a term used for staunch supporters of the Iranian regime. "This assassination may have been carried out by the Hypocrites (Iran's exiled People's Mujahedeen opposition) or planned by the Zionist regime," Al-Alam said. Iranian authorities have consistently accused arch foes the United States and Israel of seeking to ferment unrest in Iran. Hardliners have also accused the People's Mujahedeen of infiltrating anti-government protests and carrying out attacks. The Australian
 Gen David Petraeus, head of Central Command or Centcom, did not elaborate on the plans, but said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there. Asked about the vulnerability of Iran's nuclear installations, he told CNN: "Well, they certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear." He added: "It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies." Iran maintains its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel has called Iran's nuclear programme the major threat facing its nation. Gen Petraeus declined to comment about Israel's military capabilities, according to CNN. Iran had until the end of last year to accept a deal offered five permanent UN Security Council members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany. It did not do so. Instead, Tehran gave the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal. Petraeus said he thought there was still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any US contingency plans. But he added that "there's a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head". The Telegraph
 WELL into a January 3 New York Times report on the US administration's increasingly worried internal discussions about Iran, there came a couple of paragraphs that warranted closer scrutiny: "[Barack] Obama's top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran, published a year before resident George W. Bush left office, which said that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in late 2003. "After reviewing new documents that have leaked out of Iran and debriefing defectors lured to the West, Mr Obama's advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale - the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel." Leaving to one side the alarming possibility that any of Obama's people ever did believe the preposterous arguments of that National Intelligence Estimate, one must wonder what sort of scale is implied by "smaller". That ostensibly reassuring usage might, in fact, be accurate. The new documents alluded to in the article were published in The Times of London last December, and have been extensively reviewed by numerous authorities, none of whom has chosen to challenge their authenticity. And the documents do, in point of fact, throw light on something smaller scale.
To be precise, they show the internal memoranda of the dictatorship as they bear on the crucial question of a neutron initiator. Small as this device may be, it is the technical expression used for the trigger mechanism of a workable nuclear weapon.
The critical element of the trigger is uranium deuteride or UD3. And uranium deuteride has no other purpose. To quote David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington: "Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application. This is a very strong indicator of weapons work." Remember the other long-concealed enrichment site at Natanz and also the heavy-water plant at Arak. And remember, too, that this is not information that derives from possibly self-interested defectors or bickering intelligence services - even the most cautious spokesmen from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been confident enough to make public criticisms of Iran's self-evident duplicity. The signature of the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei despotism on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as its supposed adherence to a whole thesaurus of agreements with the UN and the European Union, has long been shown to be as cynical and worthless as its claims to have held a free election.
The regime's Revolutionary Guards, now engaged in still another bloody battle with unarmed Iranian civilians, are emerging as the proprietors of the secret nuclear arsenal. The enemy is in plain view. I encourage you to view the Iranian documents for yourselves: The Times of London subjected them to considerable expertise before publishing them and is confident of their provenance. I quote here from an excellent summary by the newspaper's diplomatic correspondent Catherine Philp: "UD3, when used in a neutron initiator, emits a stream of neutrons that ignite the core of a bomb, either weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. The stream of neutrons is released using high explosives to compress a core of solid UD3, creating fusion." But this in turn presents a difficulty for the surreptitious bomb-makers, because the testing of such a trigger could not be explained away as a detonation of a conventional high-explosive weapon. In other words, it would allow monitors to detect the traces of UD3. The whole interest of the newly leaked documents lies precisely in the way in which a further level of cheating is therefore so carefully discussed. A smaller scale of test, according to the regime's scientists, could be attempted using titanium deuteride instead. By this means, a useful flow of neutrons could still be produced but without the incriminating trace elements. The apparent idea, according to one quoted expert, was "to test the match without burning it". The chance that this is not a militaristic and messianic design intended to harden the carapace of the dictatorship and help extend its powers of regional blackmail seem ridiculously close to zero. Iran has had numberless offers from the West to help it acquire the faculties of peaceful nuclear energy and reduce its wasteful use of oil and gas. If it would permit the most elementary transparency, it could also be enabled to purchase uranium at far less cost on the open market, as other nations do. But the mullahs prefer to risk isolation and sanctions in order to construct off-the-record sites and to conduct deception operations that would be almost pathetically crude if they were not so self-evidently sinister. (It also disdains to hide its real intentions from its clients and surrogates: at a Hezbollah rally in Beirut last year, I was impressed to see that the brand new poster of the Party of God is a mushroom cloud; officials from the Iranian embassy were openly on the podium at this uplifting event.) How fascinating it is to sit at home and watch while this menace is permitted to reach the point of no return. Almost as gripping, in fact, as following the jaunty itineraries of suicide-murderers as they calmly buy their one-way tickets, in cash, on airplanes bound for our cities.
The similarity between these two passive experiences is quite riveting as well: in both instances, we lavish billions of dollars on intelligence agencies that cannot make sense of elementary forensic evidence; that coddle and excuse our enemies and treat us like criminals when we ourselves try to travel; that meanwhile leave us unprotected under open skies; and that run a full-employment bureaucracy from which it seems nobody can be, or ever has been, fired. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the online Slate magazine, where this column originally appeared. He is the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, California. The Australian
 THE salient strategic fact in the Middle East today is the Iranian drive for regional hegemony. This Iranian objective is being promoted by a rising hardline conservative elite within the Iranian regime, centred on a number of political associations and on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards corps. This elite, which is personified by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has received the backing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Their aim is a second Islamic revolution that would revive the original fire of the revolution of 1979. They appear to be aiming for the augmenting of clerical rule with a streamlined, brutal police-security state, under the banner of Islam. Building Iranian power and influence throughout the Middle East is an integral part of their strategy. The Iranian nuclear program is an aspect of this ambition. A nuclear capability is meant to form the ultimate insurance for the Iranian regime as it aggressively builds its influence across the region. This goal of hegemony is being pursued through the assembling of a bloc of states and organisations under Iranian leadership. This bloc, according to Iran, represents authentic Muslim currents within the region, battling against the US and its hirelings. The pro-Iranian bloc includes Syria, Sudan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas among the Palestinians, and the Houthi rebel forces in northern Yemen. Israel, despite lacking official diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, is also a key member of this camp. Unlike the pro-Iranian bloc, which has a simple guiding ideology of resistance to the West, the countries seeking to counter Iran are united by interest only. The rivalry between these two camps now informs and underlies all-important developments in the Middle East. It is behind the joint Israeli-Egyptian effort to contain the Iran-sponsored Hamas enclave in the Gaza Strip. It is behind the fighting in north Yemen, as Saudi troops take on Shia rebels armed and supported by Iran. The rivalry is behind the face-off between pro-American and pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon. The insurgencies in Afghanistan and in Iraq are also notable for the presence of weaponry traceable to Iran in use by insurgents against Western forces. Who is winning in this ongoing Middle East cold war? The rhetoric of the Iranians, of course, depicts their advance as unstoppable. The reality is more complex, and the past year has seen gains and losses for both sides. First, within Iran the electoral victory of Ahmadinejad and the subsequent backing given to him by Khamenei represented a major advance for the Iranian hardline conservatives. Ahmadinejad subsequently confirmed his victory by forming a cabinet that is packed with conservatives and Revolutionary Guardsmen. But the refusal of large sections of the Iranian people to accept the possibly rigged election and the unprecedented scenes of opposition in the streets of Iranian cities in recent weeks have severely tarnished this achievement. The ongoing unrest in Iran probably does not constitute an immediate danger to the regime. But it surely indicates that large numbers of Iranians have no desire to see their country turned into the instrument of permanent Islamic revolution and resistance envisaged by the hardline conservatives. The domestic unrest thus hits significantly at the emerging regime's legitimacy, and their ability to promote their regime as a model for governance to the Arab and wider Muslim world. Iran made major advances in Lebanon last year. The formation of the new Lebanese government in November in essence confirms Hezbollah's domination of the country. Hezbollah is the favoured child of the Iranian regime and its partner in subversive activity globally. There is now no serious internal force in Lebanon able to oppose its will. In Gaza, the Iranian-sponsored Hamas regime is holding on. The Iranian investment is central to Hamas's ability to stay in power. The movement just announced a budget of $US540 million ($590m) for 2010. Of this, just $US55m is to be raised through taxes and local sources of revenue. The rest is to come from "aid and assistance". Hamas does not reveal the identity of its benefactors. But it is fairly obvious that the bulk of this funding will come from Iran. The Palestinian issue remains the central cause celebre of the Arab and Muslim world. The Iranian regime's goal is to take ownership of it. But there have been setbacks here too. The Iranian resistance model failed in a straight fight with the Israeli Defence Forces in the early part of the year. Hamas's 100-man "Iranian unit" suffered near destruction in Gaza. The Hamas regime in Gaza managed to kill six IDF soldiers in the entire course of Operation Cast Lead. This is a failure, recorded as such by all regional observers. In addition, someone or the other appears to be trying to demonstrate to the Iranians that the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy is a two-way street. Hence the killing of 29 Revolutionary Guards in a bombing in October near the Iran-Pakistan border, and the mysterious explosion in Damascus last month that killed a number of Iranian pilgrims. So at the beginning of 2010, the lines are clearly drawn in the Middle East cold war, and the contest is far from over. Ultimately, like other totalitarians before them, the Iranian hardline conservatives are likely to fail through overreach. The inefficient, corruption-ridden and oppressive state they are coming to dominate is likely to prove an insufficient instrument to sustain their boundless ambition. Still, this process probably has a long way to run yet. Much will depend on the sense of purpose, will and resourcefulness of the Western and regional countries that this regime has identified as its enemies. This is a contest for the future of the region. It has almost certainly not yet reached its height. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Centre in Herzliya, Israel. The Australian
 The Obama administration believes domestic unrest and signs of unexpected trouble in Iran's nuclear program make the country's leaders particularly vulnerable to strong and immediate new sanctions. As US President Barack Obama faces pressure to back up his year-end ultimatum for diplomatic progress with Iran, reports yesterday said strong and immediate new sanctions would initiate the latest phase in a strategy to force Iran to comply with UN demands to halt production of nuclear fuel. The sanctions proposal comes as the administration has completed a fresh review of Iran's nuclear progress. Mr Obama's strategists believe Iran's top political and military leaders were distracted in recent months by turmoil in the streets and political infighting, and that their drive to produce nuclear fuel appears to have faltered, officials told The New York Times. The White House wants to focus the new sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps believed to run the nuclear weapons effort. Although repeated rounds of sanctions over many years have not dissuaded Iran from pursuing nuclear technology, a US administration official involved in the Iran policy said the hope was that the current troubles "give us a window to impose the first sanctions that may make the Iranians think the nuclear program isn't worth the price tag", the paper noted. The Obama administration officials said they believed Iran's bomb-development effort was seriously derailed by the exposure three months ago of the country's secret enrichment plant under construction near the holy city of Qom. Exposure of the site deprived Iran of its best chance of covertly producing the highly enriched uranium needed to make fuel for nuclear weapons. As well, international nuclear inspectors report that at Iran's plant in Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges spin to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, the number of the machines operating has dropped by 20 per cent since the northern summer, a decline that nuclear experts attribute to technical problems. Others, including some European officials, believe the problems may have been accentuated by a series of covert efforts by the West to undermine Iran's program, including sabotage on its imported equipment and infrastructure. These factors have led the Obama administration's policymakers to lengthen their estimate of how long it would take Iran to accomplish what nuclear experts call "covert breakout" -- the ability to secretly produce a workable weapon. "For now, the Iranians don't have a credible breakout option, and we don't think they will have one for at least 18 months, maybe two or three years," the paper quotes one senior administration official as saying. The administration has told allies that the longer time frame would allow the sanctions to have an effect before Iran could develop to the full its nuclear ability. The Australian
 The script has already been written. The Iranian government is closely following a plotline in its quest to become the next nuclear weapons-armed state.
And like most cliché thriller movies, the twists are predictable and yet a gullible bunch continues to fall for it. The first part of the script calls for developing the building blocks for a nuclear weapon while claiming such work is for a domestic nuclear energy program, completely in line with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Most of Iran’s work here can be done legally, although in an effort to speed up the process, the regime has been working on the “trigger” for nuclear explosions and long-range ballistic missiles, and constructing covert enrichment facilities, like the one in Qom that can house only 3,000 centrifuges — far from the 50,000 needed for energy but good enough for building the fuel for a bomb. Heck, they’re even permitted to build implosion devices minus the fissile core and are studying the use of EMP strikes that can disable the American power grid instantly with few fingerprints being left behind.
Working in this way allows for minimal incriminating traces to be found, giving countries like Russia and China maximum room to delay and demand higher levels of proof before supporting any meaningful reprisal. The words of Iranian officials expose this thinly concealed strategy. In his book Countdown to Crisis, Ken Timmerman quotes Homayoun Vahdati, a scientific advisor to then-President Rafsanjani, as saying on January 27, 1992, “We should like to acquire the technical know-how and the industrial facilities required to manufacture nuclear weapons, just in case we need them.
This does not mean that we currently want to build them or that we have changed our defense strategy to include a nuclear program.” More at Pajamas Media
 Intelligence reports are buzzing that the Islamic Republic of Iran has attempted to smuggle $450 million worth of uranium from Kazakhstan. The 1,350 tons of purified uranium would be enough for Iran to continue its nuclear program, which many believe is geared towards producing a nuclear weapon. The report was drawn up by a member nation of the International Atomic Energy Agency and provided to the AP on condition that the country not be identified because of the confidential nature of the information. In Washington, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said, “the transfer of any uranium yellowcake … to Iran would constitute a clear violation of UNSC sanctions.” We have yet to hear more about this, but if true, it would be a clear indication of several things.
One, Iran believes that it is low on uranium. Secondly, it is in clear violation of United Nations conditions on its nuclear program. Today is the deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium, as set forth by the US government. What will their response be? World Threats
 WASHINGTON: The Obama administration is readying sanctions against elements of the Iranian government, including those involved in the deadly crackdown on Iranian protesters, marking a shift to a more aggressive US posture towards the Islamic republic, reports said yesterday. Ten months after US President Barack Obama set a year-end deadline for Iran to engage with world powers on its nuclear program, the government in Tehran has failed to respond. The Obama administration now wants to carefully target sanctions at the regime - both to avoid alienating the Iranian public and to keep the door ajar to a resolution of the struggle over Iran's nuclear program, US officials told The Washington Post. The aim of the sanctions would be to force the Tehran government to the negotiating table, rather than to punish it for either its apparent push to develop a nuclear weapon or its treatment of its people, the report said. "We have never been attracted to the idea of trying to get the whole world to cordon off their economy," a senior US official told the paper. "We have to be deft at this, because it matters how the Iranian people interpret their isolation - whether they fault the regime or are fooled into thinking we are to blame." Authorities also arrested the sister of Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi as the embattled regime stepped up efforts to suppress a resurgent opposition yesterday. Unable to arrest Dr Ebadi - who regularly denounces the regime from exile in Europe - the regime sent four intelligence agents to seize her sister, Nooshin, a doctor, from her home. Mr Obama and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband signalled strong support for Iranian demonstrators. Mr Obama's comments were his strongest words of support yet for the protesters. Until now, the Obama administration, along with other Western powers, has kept criticism muted so as not to further complicate the nuclear talks. The biggest roadblock in the negotiations has been Tehran's refusal to agree to an International Atomic Energy Agency-brokered deal to ship much of Iran's uranium to Russia, where it would be further enriched and sent back for use in a medical-research reactor. After Iranian negotiators appeared to agree to the deal, Iranian officials baulked at signing, issuing a series of sometimes-contradictory demands for alterations. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki yesterday said his country was willing to produce and enrich the uranium needed for the medical reactor itself. Appearing to turn the tables on Western powers, he said it was Iran that was waiting for a response to its counterproposal to the IAEA-brokered proposal. The Australian
 Iran is close to clinching a deal to clandestinely import 1,350 tons of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan, according to an intelligence report obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday. Diplomats said the assessment was heightening international concern about Tehran's nuclear activities. Such a purified uranium ore deal would be significant because Tehran appears to be running out of the material, which it needs to feed its uranium enrichment program. The report was drawn up by a member nation of the International Atomic Energy agency and provided to the AP on condition of that the country not be identified because of the confidential nature of the information. Such imports are banned by the U.N. Security Council. In New York, Burkina Faso's U.N. Ambassador Michel Kafando, a co-chair of the Security Council's Iran sanctions committee, referred questions Tuesday about a potential deal between Iran and Kazakhstan to his sanctions adviser, Zongo Saidou. Saidou told the AP that, as far as he knew, none of the U.N.'s member nations have alerted the committee about any such allegations. "We don't have any official information yet regarding this kind of exchange between the two countries," Saidou said. "I don't have any information; I don't have any proof." A senior U.N. official said the agency was aware of the intelligence report's assessment but could not yet draw conclusions.
He demanded anonymity for discussing confidential information. A Western diplomat from a member of the IAEA's 35-nation board said the report was causing "concern" among countries that have seen it and generating "intelligence chatter." The diplomat also requested anonymity for discussing intelligence information. A two-page summary of the report obtained by the AP said deal could be completed within weeks.
It said Tehran was willing to pay $450 million, or close to 315 million euros, for the shipment. The price is high because of the secret nature of the deal and due to Iran's commitment to keep secret the elements supplying the material," said the summary. An official of the country that drew up the report said "elements" referred to state employees acting on their own without approval of the Kazakh government. After-hours calls put in to offices of Kazatomprom, the Kazak state uranium company, in Kazakhstan and Moscow, were not answered Tuesday. Iranian nuclear officials also did not pick up their telephones. Purified ore, or uranium oxide, is processed into a uranium gas, which is then spun and re-spun to varying degrees of enrichment. Low enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel, and upper-end high enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze its enrichment program and related activities that could be used to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies such aspirations, saying it wants to enrich only to fuel an envisaged network of power reactors. FoxNews
 TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's foreign minister says Turkey could be a venue for Tehran to exchange nuclear material with the West. The statement is another of several offers Tehran has recently made without formally responding to a U.N.-drafted proposal that would reduce Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and ease Western concerns over Tehran's nuclear intentions. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state TV late Thursday that Iran "does not have a problem with Turkish soil" as the location for an exchange of enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. Iran has earlier said it would only accept the exchange on its own territory. The U.N. plan requires Tehran to ship enriched uranium abroad in return for nuclear fuel for a Tehran research reactor. FoxNews
 TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's president on Tuesday dismissed a year-end deadline set by the Obama administration and the West for Tehran to accept a U.N.-drafted deal to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel, and claimed his government is now "10 times stronger" than a year ago. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks underscored Tehran's defiance amid the nuclear standoff — and also sought to send a message that his government had not been weakened by the protest movement sparked by June's disputed presidential election. His comments came a day after the latest opposition protest by tens of thousands mourning a dissident cleric who died over the weekend. President Barack Obama has set a rough deadline of the end of this year for Iran to respond to an offer of dialogue and show that it will allay fears of weapons development. Washington and its allies are warning of new, tougher sanctions on Iran if it doesn't respond. The U.N.-proposed deal is the centerpiece of the West's diplomatic effort. Under the deal, Tehran would ship most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium abroad to be processed into fuel rods, which would ease the West's fears that the material could be used to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran, which denies it seeks to build a bomb, has balked at the deal's terms. The international community can give Iran "as many deadlines as they want, we don't care," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of supporters in the southern city of Shiraz. Ahmadinejad dismissed the threat of sanctions, saying Iran wants talks "under just conditions where there is mutual respect." "We told you that we are not afraid of sanctions against us and we are not intimidated," he said, addressing the West. "If Iran wanted to make a bomb, we would be brave enough to tell you." "This nuclear game thing is an old story, it's history now," the Iranian leader said, as the crowd cheered: "We love you, Ahmadinejad." He lashed out at Washington, vowing Iran will stand up against U.S. attempts to "dominate the Middle East." More at FoxNews
 The time is fast approaching when Israel has to decide whether to bomb Iran–a massive undertaking targeting many hardened sites. The consequences and risks cannot be understated: This is a frightening scenario and it has to be the most stressful decision an Israeli leader has ever made. And according to this column, one airstrike in 2004 on the Natanz facility could have prevented or at least pushed this scenario far back.
The writers argue that Iran would have lost a major portion of its stock of low-enriched uranium, significantly delaying Iran’s nuclear program, giving more time for diplomacy, sanctions and internal upheaval to be effective. It seems that whenever we discuss military action, the argument always centers on whether the threat has reached its maximum potential and therefore it is forced.
This column should remind us that sometimes its better to tackle a threat when it’s easier, than wait until its full fruition and face a nightmare when finally being forced to confront it. World Threats
 John Noonan has a couple of posts at The Weekly Standard blog that should make your hair stand up. He first analyzes the latest Iranian missile test, pointing out that the new Sajjil-2 missile uses solid-fuel, making it more accurate and reliable and “killing any chance of an advanced warning or neutralization actions prior to a launch” since it doesn’t have to be loaded like a liquid fuel-based missile does. Furthermore, the missile has two-stages. To put that in perspective, our advanced Minuteman III ICBMs are three stages. That means they are one stage away from having an ICBM. Noonan also warns that Iran’s infrastructure goes far beyond what’s necessary for developing a few nuclear weapons. He concludes the Iranians want to build an arsenal, including hydrogen bombs. Below is a long excerpt from his analysis: Iran’s nuclear program is spread throughout a variety of experimental laboratories, hardened enrichment facilities, heavy water manufacturing plants, and two plutonium reactors currently under development (Bushehr could come online within a few months). That far exceeds what’s needed to turn on the lights, but it’s also beyond what’s needed for a basic nuclear weapons program. Consider North Korea, which manufactured two limited yield nuclear weapons using only a plutonium reactor, a plutonium reprocessing facility, and — presumably — some sort of weapons laboratory. Why is Iran pumping billions more into building and protecting triple the number of facilities required to build a basic nuclear weapon, akin to the Fat Man or Little Boy bombs detonated in 1945? The answer could be that Tehran is skipping basic weapons construction and moving towards an advanced thermonuclear design. Consider that they’ve already experimented with advanced weapons designs like two-point implosion, nuclear triggers, and have built their own facility at Arak that could be used to produce both tritium, which is a suspected boosting agent in hydrogen bomb designs, as well as weapons-grade plutonium.
They’ve spent billions building, hardening, and protecting uranium enrichment, which could be used along with plutonium in a staged nuclear device. All this at an astronomical cost and effort compared to the similar North Korean nuclear program. World Threats
 Iran revealed its nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom in late September after a British agent exposed its true purpose to the West, Ynet learned Tuesday. American, British and Israeli satellites had documented construction works at the uranium enrichment site for years, but the West only learned of its true purpose from an MI-6 agent who was exposed by Iran. Information proved by another Western intelligence agency coincided with the agent's findings. A report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had told the UN nuclear watchdog that it had begun building the plant within a bunker beneath a mountain near Qom in 2007, but the IAEA had evidence the project had begun in 2002. The Islamic Republic said it decided to report the existence of the plant due to its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran told the Vienna-based agency that the site, which is guarded by heavy anti-aircraft weaponry, wouldn't be operational for 18 months and that no centrifuges have been installed in it as of yet. The White House responded to the development by urging Iran's complete and immediate cooperation with the IAEA. "After hiding this site from the international community for years, full transparency is essential, and it is time for Iran to play by the rules like everyone else," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in late September. US President Barack Obama said at the time that evidence of Iran's building the underground plant "continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion" that jeopardizes global nonproliferation. Ynet
 IRAN has dismissed as a "scenario'' hatched by Western powers a report alleging that it is working on a key component of a nuclear bomb. "Some countries are angry that our people defend their nuclear rights,'' foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said today. When Western powers "want to pressure us they craft such scenarios which is unacceptable,'' he said. He was reacting to a report in the British newspaper The Times which said yesterday it had obtained notes describing a four-year plan by Iran to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb which triggers an explosion. The Times claimed that foreign intelligence agencies dated the documents to early 2007 - four years after Tehran was thought to have suspended its weapons program. It said the documents detailed a plan to test whether the device works - without leaving traces of uranium that the outside world could detect. Its uranium enrichment work is at the centre of fears about the program as the process which makes nuclear fuel can also be used to make the fissile core of an atom bomb. Iran is under three sets of UN sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment and risks a further round after rejecting a UN-brokered deal to send its low enriched uranium abroad to be further refined into fuel for a research reactor. The Australian
 FACING an uncrushable opposition and imploding economy, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing the nuclear card in an attempt to rally his fractured nation. By defying the West, rejecting talks and issuing scarcely credible promises to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, he is hoping to whip up a nationalist fervour that will distract attention from Iran's deepening domestic troubles. It is a high-risk strategy, not least because Iran's opposition politicians are as committed to the nuclear program as he is.
Iran's nuclear program is popular, even among the country's Western-minded urban elite, though the question of whether it is for civil power or weapons is seldom discussed openly.
To most Iranians, the program is a source of national pride and a sovereign right that offers reassurance to a nation that feels isolated and vulnerable.
Iran is a Farsi-speaking Shia Muslim state in a region dominated by Arab countries with Sunni majorities. It is surrounded by US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf and threatened by Israel's nuclear arsenal. Above all, it recalls vividly how the West backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, despite his use of chemical weapons. Internal competition over the nuclear issue is in grave danger of escalating Iran's confrontation with the West. It may backfire domestically, too. Circumstances have changed dramatically in Iran this year and the nuclear card may well have lost its domestic potency. Iranians are questioning the cost of the program as unemployment and inflation are soaring, factories are closing and industrial unrest is spreading. Their economic hardship will become much worse if Ahmadinejad proceeds with his plan to save $US100 billion ($109.7bn) a year by cutting subsidies on petrol, electricity, water, food, health and education. Some, including Ahmadinejad himself, argue that imposing sanctions over Iran's nuclear program will serve only to unite the Iranian people. The Australian
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Back in December, one report stated: "The [Obama] administration had given a rough deadline of the end of 2009 for Iran to respond to an offer of engagement and show that it would allay world concerns about its nuclear program."
Posts
