Cientista nuclear morre e outro ficou ferido em dois ataques em Teerã

Al convulso Irán de hoy día, sometido a una grave fractura política interna, a una profunda crisis económica, y a la presión diplomática y financiera de los países occidentales que desean abortar sus planes atómicos, se ha sumado un atentado terrorista de los que quedan en el misterio y sin respuesta durante años. Una bomba adosada a una motocicleta y detonada por control remoto ha matado por la mañana al científico nuclear de 50 años Massud Alí Mohamadi en un barrio del norte de Teherán.

El Gobierno iraní no ha perdido un instante en lanzar su inevitable acusación contra la denominada "arrogancia global", y ha responsabilizado del asesinato al "triángulo infame: Israel, Estados Unidos y a sus agentes contratados en Irán". Washington ha rechazado toda implicación. En Israel, ante sucesos de esta naturaleza, se acostumbra a no pronunciar palabra.

El profesor Mohamadi ha fallecido nada más abandonar su vivienda a las 8.00 horas tras una deflagración que destrozó las ventanas de los edificios cercanos. Algunos funcionarios iraníes han imputado el crimen a la organización opositora en el exilio Mujahidin Jalq, que lucha contra el régimen teocrático desde hace décadas. Pero en atentados como éste lo prudente es descartar toda certeza.

Nada claro está si el profesor asesinado formaba parte del programa nuclear iraní, aunque la Organización de la Energía Atómica de Irán ha negado todo vínculo. "No cooperaba ni jugó ningún papel en la Organización de la Energía Atómica", ha apuntado su portavoz, Ali Shirzadian. Tampoco se sabe a ciencia cierta su especialidad académica. Algunas webs aseguran que era un físico nuclear; otras afirman que su especialidad era la física teórica y de partículas.

Asimismo, prevalecen las dudas sobre sus inclinaciones políticas. Aunque fue un ferviente defensor de la revolución que derrocó al sah de Persia, Mohamed Reza Pahlevi, en 1979, algunas informaciones le incluyen entre los profesores que apoyaron al candidato Mir Husein Musaví, rival del presidente, Mahmud Ahmadineyad, en las elecciones de junio de 2009.

A las frecuentes revueltas populares contra el mandatario ?la última el 27 de diciembre, cuando perecieron ocho personas? y al empobrecimiento paulatino de la población, que puede agravarse si las potencias occidentales imponen sanciones más severas al régimen de Teherán, se añaden ahora los atentados. Las sospechosas desapariciones de científicos o responsables militares supuestamente implicados en el plan atómico iraní suceden desde hace tres años.

El pasado mes de mayo, el científico nuclear Shahram Amiri se esfumó después de viajar en peregrinaje a La Meca. Teherán ha insistido en que Amiri fue entregado por el Gobierno de Arabia Saudí a agentes estadounidenses. Más llamativa fue la fuga o secuestro, a comienzos de 2007, del ex viceministro de Defensa Ali Reza Asgari, quien había viajado a Turquía. Nada se sabe de su paradero, aunque lo más probable es que este ex general de brigada de la Guardia Revolucionaria, con amplia trayectoria en Líbano e Irak, resida ahora en EE UU.

Otro hombre, conocido sólo por su apellido ?Ardebili?, fue al parecer detenido en 2009 en Georgia. No se le ha visto desde entonces. Y en enero de 2007, según la página web Debka, muy próxima a los servicios de espionaje israelíes, el profesor de la Universidad de Shiraz Ardeshir Hassanbpour falleció por una intoxicación de gas en su domicilio.

No es previsible que el asesinato Mohamadi vaya a arredrar a las autoridades iraníes. Al contrario, más previsible es que el atentado terrorista, un extraño acontecimiento en la capital del país, refuerce la posición del régimen. Stratfor, un think tank estadounidense citado por Reuters, ha señalado: "El ataque hará que Irán sea más intransigente porque la República Islámica no podrá ser vista derrumbándose ante la presión, especialmente si proviene de Occidente e Israel". "Semejantes actos terroristas y la aparente eliminación de científicos nucleares definitivamente no obstruirán el proceso científico y tecnológico", ha coincidido el Ministerio de Exteriores. Precisamente el sábado se reunirán en Nueva York las grandes potencias para estudiar nuevas sanciones a Irán por su rechazo a detener su programa nuclear, que Teherán reitera está destinado a usos civiles, aunque Israel y los países occidentales sospechan que esconde el objetivo de fabricar bombas atómicas.

¿Guarda relación el atentado terrorista, como opinaban algunos analistas políticos, con las purgas de docentes opositores al Gobierno de Ahmadineyad? Si no es éste el caso y el asesinato es obra del Mosad (servicio de espionaje exterior israelí), de Mujahidin Jalq o de agentes estadounidenses, lo que resulta evidente es que la infiltración en Irán de esos elementos extranjeros contiene un enorme potencial desestabilizador. Como ya sucediera en Siria, firme aliado de Irán, a comienzos de 2008. Un atentado ejecutado en febrero de ese año, en pleno centro de Damasco, a escasos metros de la sede de los servicios de inteligencia sirios, segó la vida de Imad Mugniyeh, jefe militar de Hezbolá, quien murió al explotar una bomba en el reposacabezas de su vehículo. El por entonces primer ministro israelí, Ehud Olmert, recibió felicitaciones por la muerte del líder de la milicia chií libanesa.

Mubarak: "Egypt must consider nuclear bomb"

afrol News, 30 November - Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak in talks with US diplomats leaves it clear that Iran is the greatest threat to his country. Should Iran get nuclear bombs, Egypt would "be forced" to do the same, he said.

According to several of the US State Department documents released this week by WikiLeaks, Egypt sees Iran as the major threat to its and the region's security. US diplomats and senators visiting Egypt in the period 2008-2010 are given the same and repeated message by President Mubarak and Egyptian General Intelligence Service (EGIS) chief Omar Soliman: Iran must be contained.

In May 2008, US Congressman Brian Baird together with US Ambassador in Cairo, Margaret Scobey, met President Mubarak for informal talks. Again, the Egyptian President emphasised on the need to stop Iranian expansion.

According to Ambassador Scobey's report, President Mubarak said that no one would accept a nuclear Iran: "We are all terrified," the Egyptian Preasident was quoted as saying. In talks with Iranian ex-President Khatami, he had warned against provoking "the Americans" into striking against Iran.

But President Mubarak went further. The Egyptian President "said that Egypt might be forced to begin its own nuclear weapons program if Iran succeeds in those efforts," according to the leaked embassy report.

The Egyptian leader in meeting after meeting urged the Americans to get tough on Iran. However, asked about a possible US-Arab military alliance against Iran, Mr Mubarak ruled out that option, which could provoke popular resentments.

According to Egyptian intelligence chief Soliman, speaking to US General David Petraeus in July 2009, Iran is actively trying to destablise the Middle East region and Egypt. Mr Soliman stressed that "Egypt suffers from Iranian interference, through its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies, and its support for Egyptian groups like Jamaatt al-Islamiyya and the Muslim Brotherhood," according to the Cairo embassy's report. Egypt would "confront the Iranian threat," he was quoted as saying.

Ambassador Scobey points out that President Mubarak totally agrees with these viewpoints of his intelligence chief. She quoted the Egyptian President as saying that Iran seeks to export its "Shia revolution."

In a larger report to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in January 2009, preparing her for an upcoming meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit, Ambassador Scobey forwards a message from President Mubarak to the US government: Egypt "did not oppose the US speaking to the Iranians, as long as we did not 'believe a single word they say'."

African Union "soft on" Mugabe, Bashir
The Cairo embassy documents released by WikiLeaks also reveal little faith in the African Union (AU) by President Mubarak. The day after the AU summit in Egypt's Sharm El-Sheikh in 2008, President Mubarak told US Senator John Kerry he would have liked to exclude Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, but was unable to "because Zimbabwe is a member of the African Union."

According to the embassy report, President Mubarak told Senator Kerry "the British were behind this 'big fuss' and that the pressure from other African leaders was 'sufficiently soft that Mugabe can do what he wants'."

Regarding the Darfur conflict and Sudan's controversial President Omar al-Bashir, President Mubarak said the issue was not discussed publicly at all at the AU summit. He also was quoted as saying that "this issue could have been worked out" if it were not debated so publicly because "two tribes always work things out."

WikiLeaked diplomatic cables showed that nuclear Iran is the Arab world's worst nightmare

The WikiLeaks release of some 250,000 diplomatic cables - including about 15,000 classified as "secret" - could imperil America's vital alliances, deepen rifts with competitors and endanger lives. But there's already been one salutary consequence:

The cables make clear that Iran's Arab neighbors are just as afraid of Iran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons as the U.S. and Israel are. Why, they have practically begged the U.S. to stop Tehran through military action.

In one cable, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urges the American government to "cut off the head of the snake" - presumably, either President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's highest religious authority.

In others, Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed says of Iran: "They have to be dealt with before they do something tragic." And he delivers this stunningly blunt pronouncement: "Ahmadinejad is Hitler."

The assistant to Egypt's defense minister is quoted as saying his country "views Iran as a threat to the region."

Ali Abdullah Saleh, president of Yemen, says Iran must be barred from obtaining nukes because Tehran "wants to restore the Persian Empire."

The man who would later become Lebanon's prime minister, Saad Hariri, tells American officials that they "must be willing to go all the way if need be" to stop Iran's nuclear program.

Thanks to Ahmadinejad's calls for wiping Israel off the map, the world has viewed him primarily as a threat to the Jewish state - which, of course, he is. But the dangers he poses have always been much deeper.

Iran aspires to dominate the region with the muscle of nuclear weapons and alliances with terrorist bands like Hezbollah and Hamas. Ahmadinejad is arming both while, to cite just one facet of his ambition, overtly maneuvering to become the ultimate power in Lebanon.

The U.S. has led a long, hard push to isolate Iran politically and economically. American, European and UN sanctions are finally in place and appear to be having some impact.

Of late, there have also been reports out of Iran that a computer virus, perhaps devised by Israel, had damaged Tehran's nuclear processing centrifuges. And, just yesterday, someone fatally bombed one top Iranian nuclear scientist and wounded a second.

More must be done.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia are none too keen on letting a nuclear-armed madman become the rallying figure for radical Islamist forces that could consume them. In that sense, they share a common enemy with Israel.

Yet they have been loath to talk about it, preferring instead to privately prod the U.S. into striking. Now, the world knows better - and the world is better off for it.

Iran agrees to fresh nuclear talks

Iranian negotiatior to meet the EU foreign policy chief in December to discuss uranium enrichment programme.

Iran has agreed to take part in talks on its controversial nuclear programme after 14 months of stalemate.

Said Jalili, Iran's nuclear negotiator, will meet Catherine Ashton, the European Union foreign policy chief who heads an international delegation on the nuclear issue, on December 6 and 7.

"We have now received a formal response from the Iranian authorities confirming that Dr Jalili has agreed to Catherine Ashton's proposal to meet in Geneva," an EU foreign affairs spokesman said on Tuesday.

"Talks between Ashton, on behalf of the E3+3, and Jalili will now take place on Monday and Tuesday of next week in Geneva."

Ashton has the backing of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - referred to as the E3+3 or the P5+1 - to hold talks with Iran on its nuclear programme.

'Sticking points'

The US and its allies have said that they are concerned Iran is trying to build an atomic weapon, but Iran insists that its nuclear programme is simply to meet civilian energy needs.

The talks will be the first high-level meeting with Iran on the issue since October 2009.

Al Jazeera's Laurence Lee, reporting from London, said that there were "sticking points" even before the talks take place.

"The Iranians want to talk about the fuel swap idea that they brokered with Turkey, whereas the powers - the European Union and the other powers - want to talk about the very fact of the nuclear programme," he said.

Iran has repeatedly refused to stop its uranium enrichment process, a key demand of the six powers, but did agree to exchange its low-enriched uranium in Turkey for nuclear fuel processed abroad.

Sanctions imposed

Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, proposed in October that the talks with the six powers should resume "in late October or early November".

His remarks came just weeks after EU foreign ministers formally adopted new sanctions on Iran's key energy sector, with Canada following suit, in a bid to push Tehran into talks on its nuclear programme.

The new EU sanctions included a ban on the sale of equipment, technology and services to Iran's energy sector and came a month after the United States passed similar sanctions

The EU and US restrictions came on top of a fourth round of sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

Sobre o Programa Nuclear do Irã...

Iranian nuclear plant nears national electricity production

The Bushehr plant is expected to produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity once all the fuel rods are in place.

An Iranian nuclear energy plant could be weeks away from producing electricity for the country's national grid, national media outlets reported Saturday.

Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the fueling of the plant in the southern city of Bushehr is complete and that officials are hoping that the facility "will hook up with the national grid in one or two months."

"All fuel assemblies have been loaded into the core of the reactor" and "all we have to do is wait for the water inside the reactor's core to warm gradually, and carry out another series of tests," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Salehi as saying.

The news comes amid persistent consternation among the United States and other international powers over Iran's nuclear program. They suspect Iran is developing nuclear power for military purposes, a claim Iran has denied.

Talks in Europe over Iran's nuclear program are scheduled to resume December 5. Iran has been under stiff sanctions over its continuation of uranium enrichment.

Iran will be meeting with the so-called P5 plus 1 countries -- Germany and the five U.N. Security Council permanent members: the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the United States has no problem with the Bushehr plant, but she is concerned about "places like Natanz and their secret facility at Qom and other places where we believe they are conducting their weapons program."

The Bushehr plant is expected to produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity once all the fuel rods are in place in the core of the reactor.

The construction of the Bushehr plant, on the coast of the Persian Gulf, started in 1975 when Germany signed a contract with Iran. Germany, however, pulled out of the project after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Iran then signed a deal with Russia in 1995, under which the plant was scheduled to be completed in 1999, but the project was repeatedly delayed.

The fuel for the plant has been provided by Russia. Under an earlier agreement, Iran is set to send the spent fuel rods to Russia.

An Iranian nuclear energy plant could be weeks away from producing electricity for the country's national grid, national media outlets reported Saturday.

Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the fueling of the plant in the southern city of Bushehr is complete and that officials are hoping that the facility "will hook up with the national grid in one or two months."

"All fuel assemblies have been loaded into the core of the reactor" and "all we have to do is wait for the water inside the reactor's core to warm gradually, and carry out another series of tests," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Salehi as saying.

The news comes amid persistent consternation among the United States and other international powers over Iran's nuclear program. They suspect Iran is developing nuclear power for military purposes, a claim Iran has denied.

Talks in Europe over Iran's nuclear program are scheduled to resume December 5. Iran has been under stiff sanctions over its continuation of uranium enrichment.

Iran will be meeting with the so-called P5 plus 1 countries -- Germany and the five U.N. Security Council permanent members: the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the United States has no problem with the Bushehr plant, but she is concerned about "places like Natanz and their secret facility at Qom and other places where we believe they are conducting their weapons program."

The Bushehr plant is expected to produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity once all the fuel rods are in place in the core of the reactor.

The construction of the Bushehr plant, on the coast of the Persian Gulf, started in 1975 when Germany signed a contract with Iran. Germany, however, pulled out of the project after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Iran then signed a deal with Russia in 1995, under which the plant was scheduled to be completed in 1999, but the project was repeatedly delayed.

The fuel for the plant has been provided by Russia. Under an earlier agreement, Iran is set to send the spent fuel rods to Russia.

WikiLeaks documents reveal Arab states' anxiety over Iran

WikiLeaks document: Saudi King Abdullah told an Iranian official: "You as Persians have no business meddling in Arab matters."

According to another cable, King Hamadbin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain told the commander of U.S. Central Command, Gen. David H. Petraeus, that Iran was the "source of much of the trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

The cable, sent in November 2009 by the U.S. ambassador in Bahrain, added that the king had "argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their nuclear program, by whatever means necessary. 'That program must be stopped,' he said.

Another cable reveals that in the neighboring United Arab Emirates, Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan told a congressional delegation last February that "if Iran goes nuclear, others in the region will move forward on the same track, and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down."

According to a cable about the meeting sent by the U.S. ambassador on February 22, the minister added that "a crisis or confrontation in the region would create oil supply problems worldwide."

There was similar apprehension in Egypt about Iran. In a cable sent in February 2009, the U.S.

U.S. diplomatic cables obtained by the website WikiLeaks and published by newspapers in the United States and Europe on Sunday reveal considerable anxiety among the Gulf states about Iran's nuclear program, with the Bahrain's king warning, "The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it."

The cables, many marked "Secret," were among several hundred thousand obtained by WikiLeaks and published by newspapers Sunday.

They reveal great concern among Arab states about Iran's regional ambitions. One cable describes a meeting between Saudi King Abdullah and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan and other U.S. officials in March 2009.

According to the cable, the king told the Americans what he had just told the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki. "You as Persians have no business meddling in Arab matters," the Saudi monarch was quoted as telling Mottaki. "Iran's goal is to cause problems," he told Brennan. "There is no doubt something unstable about them."

The king was also highly critical of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al Maliki. He is reported to have told his American visitors: "I don't trust this man.... he's an Iranian agent." The cable continues: "The King said he had told both (former U.S. President George W.) Bush and former Vice President (Dick) Cheney: 'How can I meet with someone I don't trust?'"

King Abdullah also welcomed the election of President Barack Obama. "Thank God for bringing Obama to the presidency," he is reported as saying, adding that it had created "great hope" in the Muslim world.

According to another cable, King Hamadbin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain told the commander of U.S. Central Command, Gen. David H. Petraeus, that Iran was the "source of much of the trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

The cable, sent in November 2009 by the U.S. ambassador in Bahrain, added that the king had "argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their nuclear program, by whatever means necessary. 'That program must be stopped,' he said.

Another cable reveals that in the neighboring United Arab Emirates, Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan told a congressional delegation last February that "if Iran goes nuclear, others in the region will move forward on the same track, and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down."

According to a cable about the meeting sent by the U.S. ambassador on February 22, the minister added that "a crisis or confrontation in the region would create oil supply problems worldwide."

There was similar apprehension in Egypt about Iran. In a cable sent in February 2009, the U.S.

Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme

Embassy cables reveal the US, Israel and Arab states suspect Iran is close to acquiring nuclear weapons despite Tehran's insistence that its programme is designed to supply energy. Photograph: Morteza Nikoubazl/Reuters

• Embassy cables show Arab allies want strike against Tehran

• Israel prepared to attack alone to avoid its own 9/11

• Iranian bomb risks 'Middle East proliferation, war or both'

Sunday, November 28, 2010

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.

The revelations, in secret memos from US embassies across the Middle East, expose behind-the-scenes pressures in the scramble to contain the Islamic Republic, which the US, Arab states and Israel suspect is close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has hitherto been viewed as a desperate last resort that could ignite a far wider war.

The Saudi king was recorded as having "frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme", one cable stated. "He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008.

The cables also highlight Israel's anxiety to preserve its regional nuclear monopoly, its readiness to go it alone against Iran – and its unstinting attempts to influence American policy. The defence minister, Ehud Barak, estimated in June 2009 that there was a window of "between six and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable". After that, Barak said, "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage."

The leaked US cables also reveal that:

• Officials in Jordan and Bahrain have openly called for Iran's nuclear programme to be stopped by any means, including military.

• Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war".

• Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, warned in February that if diplomatic efforts failed, "we risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, war prompted by an Israeli strike, or both".

• Major General Amos Yadlin, Israeli's military intelligence chief, warned last year: "Israel is not in a position to underestimate Iran and be surprised like the US was on 11 September 2001."

Asked for a response to the statements, state department spokesman PJ Crowley said today it was US policy not to comment on materials, including classified documents, which may have been leaked.

Iran maintains that its atomic programme is designed to supply power stations, not nuclear warheads. After more than a year of deadlock and stalling, a fresh round of talks with the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany is due to begin on 5 December.

But in a meeting with Italy's foreign minister earlier this year, Gate said time was running out. If Iran were allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, the US and its allies would face a different world in four to five years, with a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. King Abdullah had warned the Americans that if Iran developed nuclear weapons "everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia".

America is not short of allies in its quest to thwart Iran, though some are clearly more enthusiastic than the Obama administration for a definitive solution to Iran's nuclear designs. In one cable, a US diplomat noted how Saudi foreign affairs bureaucrats were moderate in their views on Iran, "but diverge significantly from the more bellicose advice we have gotten from senior Saudi royals".

In a conversation with a US diplomat, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain "argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their (Iran´s) nuclear programme, by whatever means necessary. That programme must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it." Zeid Rifai, then president of the Jordanian senate, told a senior US official: "Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter."

In talks with US officials, Abu Dhabi crown prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed favoured action against Iran, sooner rather than later. "I believe this guy is goind to take us to war ... It's a matter of time. Personally, I cannot risk it with a guy like [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. He is young and aggressive."

In another exchange , a senior Saudi official warned that Gulf states may develop nuclear weapons of their own, or permit them to be based in their countries to deter the perceived Iranian threat.

No US ally is keener on military action than Israel, and officials there have repeatedly warned that time is running out. "If the Iranians continue to protect and harden their nuclear sites, it will be more difficult to target and damage them," the US embassy reported Israeli defence officials as saying in November 2009.

There are differing views within Israel. But the US embassy reported: "The IDF [Israeli Defence Force], however, strikes us as more inclined than ever to look toward a military strike, whether launched by Israel or by us, as the only way to destroy or even delay Iran's plans." Preparations for a strike would likely go undetected by Israel's allies or its enemies.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told US officials in May last yearthat he and the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, agreed that a nuclear Iran would lead others in the region to develop nuclear weapons, resulting in "the biggest threat to non-proliferation efforts since the Cuban missile crisis".

The cables also expose frank, even rude, remarks about Iranian leaders, their trustworthiness and tactics at international meetings. Abdullah told another US diplomat: "The bottom line is that they cannot be trusted." Mubarak told a US congressman: "Iran is always stirring trouble." Others are learning from what they describe as Iranian deception. "They lie to us, and we lie to them," said Qatar's prime minister, Hamad bin Jassim Jaber al-Thani.

Nuclear dilemma: Israel vs. Iran

Moving towards a nuclear-free Middle East will require the US to change its stance on Israel's nuclear weapons program.

If the US is to enjoy any credibility on non-proliferation in the Middle East, it will either have to change its policy toward Israel, or change its broader non-proliferation policy [AFP]

Sunday, November 28th, 2010

The year, as I recall, was 1994. The setting: a small, discreet restaurant in Herzliya, a northern suburb of Tel Aviv. During dinner with an Israeli official, I expressed the opinion that all efforts to deny weapons of mass destruction to so-called rogue Middle Eastern regimes, whether through sanctions, embargoes or otherwise, could at best be considered delaying actions.

Given the inexorable spread of technology, those countries wishing to acquire such weapons and their means of delivery eventually would do so. The only purpose of delay, then, was to create time for diplomacy, which alone could provide a long-term solution.

To my surprise, the official agreed. Of course, what I had in mind was the near-term negotiation of a genuinely verifiable Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone. Precisely what he had in mind, he did not elaborate.

As it happens, the following year, 1995, the Review and Extension Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) passed a resolution, co-sponsored by the US, in favour of establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. The US only agreed to this resolution, however, as the necessary price for an extension of the NPT, and rejected in the process any language referring to Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

Promoting a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone

Since that time, the US has strongly resisted any efforts under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to promote extension of safeguards to Israel’s undeclared nuclear facilities or, indeed, to promote a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone, despite the fact that both are fully consistent with stated US non-proliferation policy.

Instead, the US and Israel have claimed that Israeli accession to the NPT and establishment of a regional nuclear weapons-free zone must await both a comprehensive Middle East peace and full compliance of all regional states (read: Iran and Syria) with their IAEA obligations.

There are two things one can say regarding US policy toward Israel’s nuclear weapons program: First, it is consistent with the rational, common-sense notion that both accession to the NPT and establishment of regional nuclear weapons-free zones can only be achieved when the concerned states are persuaded that both are in their interest.

Second, it is utterly inconsistent with standing US non-proliferation policy virtually everywhere else. If the US is to enjoy any credibility on non-proliferation in the Middle East, it will either have to change its policy toward Israel, or change its broader non-proliferation policy.

The above comes to mind in light of some interesting statements recently made by Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, an Iranian foreign policy expert and confidant of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, in anticipation of the next round of talks between Iran and the so-called five-plus-one group, due to start on December 5.

Making commitments

Tehran has indicated it intends to broaden the planned discussions beyond its own nuclear program, and to invite comments by its six interlocutors regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons and their own commitment to nuclear disarmament. "Not answering these questions," says Hashemi, "will mean they have decided not to commit to nuclear disarmament and support the Zionist regime being armed with nuclear weapons."

One can easily dismiss this potential Iranian gambit as a cynical ploy, an effort at obfuscation designed to take the focus away from the matter at hand – Iran’s dismal record in meeting its obligations under the IAEA as a signatory to the NPT – while playing to a popular audience in the Middle East. And indeed, perhaps that is all it is.

Especially given that regional audience, however, the US and the rest of the five-plus-one, which includes all of the "legitimate" nuclear-weapons states recognised under the NPT, would do well to respond forthrightly to these questions, for they touch upon the essential nuclear bargain which lies at the heart of the NPT, as well as on the essential fairness of Western non-proliferation goals in the region.

The notion that nations will forswear nuclear weapons only when they consider it in their national interest to do so is being consistently and compellingly propounded these days by none other than Robert Gates the US secretary of defence.

Gates makes this point in support of the current policy of economic sanctions and diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran, and as a caution against resort to military force, which could only slow, and not stop an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and which would have many negative unintended consequences in the bargain.

Security Interests

Taking the Gates logic to its ultimate conclusion, however, would mean basing our attempts to achieve non-proliferation goals concerning Iran upon an appreciation of Iranian security interests, and not just on the coercive power of sanctions.

Now, there are those who believe that Iran is hell-bent on development of nuclear weapons, and that, once having obtained them, it would have no hesitation in employing them against Israel, oblivious of the retaliatory consequences to itself. There are many, both in Israel and the US, who propound this view, and who appear genuinely to believe it.

I know of no one, however, with a genuine understanding of Iran who believes the Iranians to be so devoid of calculation. On the contrary, the Iranians are very sophisticated in determining their national interest, and in pursuing it on several levels simultaneously.

It may just be that Iranian leaders have concluded that development of nuclear weapons is the only means of redressing the US ability and apparent willingness to intervene militarily in their region at will, as well as being necessary to counter an Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region, and thus will not be deterred.

Down this path probably lie attempts of other regional powers to develop such weapons, and a potentially unstable regional "balance of terror" which Iran cannot view without approbation, but with which it may feel itself well-equipped to deal. And indeed, current Iranian policy appears – one stresses the word appears – designed to maintain the privileges attached to NPT membership while also attempting to subvert those privileges to at least develop a "break-out"nuclear-weapons capability.

But let us just suppose that either current or future Iranian leaders could be convinced that there were the genuine possibility of a verifiable regional nuclear weapons-free zone which, perhaps along with certain security guarantees from the US and other major powers, might better serve their long-term interests. This may not seem likely, especially given Iran’s desire to exploit unpopular Israeli policies to their benefit.

Peace no longer a pre-requisite for nuclear disarmament

However if it were possible, the US and the West would do well to underscore their potential willingness to actively support and contribute to international enforcement and verification of a regional disarmament pact, rather than blindly supporting an open-ended policy of Israeli nuclear exceptionalism.

It is understandable that Israel and its supporters wish to focus not just on the capabilities of Israel’s antagonists in the region, but on their motivations as well, which underscores the logic in their desire to await a comprehensive regional peace based primarily on a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

However, entrenched Israeli settlement policy, long aided and abetted by the US, has made a two-state solution in former Mandatory Palestine impossible. An alternative formula may eventually be found, but not without many years of violence and rancour to come.

Waiting for peace and harmony to break out in the Middle East is no longer, if indeed it ever was, a viable prerequisite to a regional non-proliferation pact – not at the pace of current developments.

Negotiation of such an accord is due to begin in 2012, provided the parties can be brought to the table. Under the circumstances, the US and its partners would do well to frankly address Iran’s questions on December 5, and to broaden their discussions to encompass not just Iranian policies and actions, but their regional context and motivation.

Such willingness, if nothing else, would go some way toward addressing the clear ambivalence of many in the Arab world who are otherwise distrustful of Persian nuclear designs, but who are nonetheless susceptible to the appeal of an Iran which, unlike their own governments, is willing to stand up to perceived injustice.

Robert Grenier is a retired, 27-year veteran of CIA’s Clandestine Service. He conceived and organized the CIA’s Counter Proliferation Division, serving as its first chief of operations.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Na posse, emissário trará carta de Ahmadinejad à eleita

Diplomatas iranianos temem que Dilma mude também o posicionamento sobre a questão nuclear

28 de Novembro de 2010

O governo iraniano pretende enviar uma carta do próprio presidente Mahmoud Ahmadinejad à sua nova colega brasileira, Dilma Rousseff. A mensagem será entregue por meio de um "emissário especial" de Teerã, que virá para a cerimônia de posse de Dilma, no dia 1.º de janeiro.

Formalmente, o texto deve se ater ao protocolo diplomático, parabenizando a presidente pela vitória nas urnas. Nas entrelinhas, porém, a mensagem é inequívoca: o Irã teme que Dilma seja menos indulgente com violações dos direitos humanos no país persa e está ansioso para que a inédita aproximação dos últimos oito anos seja mantida.

Ahmadinejad não deverá comparecer à posse de Dilma, tampouco o ministro das Relações Exteriores do Irã, Manouchehr Mottaki. O portador da carta seria uma autoridade do segundo escalão da diplomacia de Teerã, designada para acompanhar a cerimônia em Brasília.

Diplomatas brasileiros e iranianos ainda não sabem ao certo se a provável mudança de Dilma com relação a direitos humanos no Irã envolverá também a questão nuclear.

O Brasil entrou na negociação com o acordo firmado em maio no Irã pelo presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, ao lado do premiê turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, e de Ahmadinejad. Ao final, os EUA e países europeus rejeitaram a chamada "declaração de Teerã". No mês seguinte, o Conselho de Segurança da ONU aprovou uma quarta rodada de sanções contra os iranianos; Brasil e Turquia foram os únicos a votar contra a punição.

O isolamento no órgão máximo da ONU obrigou o governo brasileiro a rever sua posição na negociação nuclear. O Itamaraty decidiu que só se envolve na questão se for convidado tanto por Teerã quanto pelo chamado P5+1, grupo formado pelos cinco membros permanentes do conselho (EUA, Rússia, Grã-Bretanha, França e China) e a Alemanha. Como Itamaraty votou contra as sanções de junho, é altamente improvável que americanos e europeus chamem o Brasil para a negociação.

Há ainda um outro elemento que deve mudar a forma como Brasília lida com o programa nuclear iraniano. Segundo um funcionário do governo brasileiro, o País avalia que o novo comando da Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica (AIEA) "entregou" o órgão da ONU aos EUA. Com apoio de Washington e da Europa, o atual diretor-geral da AIEA, o japonês Yukiya Amano, foi eleito após derrotar o sul-africano Abdul Samad Minty, apoiado pelo Brasil e emergentes.

Para o governo brasileiro, os relatórios e decisões da agência teriam se tornado praticamente "ditados" pelos EUA. "O caminho para encontrar um acordo diplomático com os iranianos terá de ser outro", diz a fonte.

Iran's nuclear plant to go on line by late January

Saturday, November 27, 2010

TEHRAN, IRAN -- Technicians have finished loading fuel into Iran's first nuclear power reactor and aim to start up the facility by late January, the country's nuclear chief said Saturday.

The startup of the Bushehr power plant, a project completed with Russian help but beset by years of delays, will deliver Iran the central stated goal of its atomic work - the generation of nuclear power.

The United States and some of its allies, however, believe the Bushehr plant is part of a civil energy program that Iran is using as cover for a secret aim to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Iran denies the accusation.

Nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi said it will take another month or two before the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor at Bushehr begins pumping electricity to Iranian cities, and he again denied that a mysterious and destructive computer worm known as Stuxnet has set back Iran's nuclear work.

"We sealed the lid of the reactor without any propaganda and fuss," Salehi was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency. "All fuel assemblies have been loaded into the core of the reactor."

The Bushehr plant itself is not among the West's concerns because safeguards are in place to ensure that the spent fuel will be returned to Russia and cannot be diverted to weapons making.

Other facilities on Iran's nuclear map are of much deeper international concern, namely the underground uranium enrichment facility in the central city of Natanz. Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to the safe, lower levels needed for making fuel for power stations like Bushehr.

But the technology offers Iran a potential pathway to weapons production, should it chose to enrich uranium to higher, weapons-grade levels.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed four sets of sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend enrichment.

In the case of Bushehr, the fuel has been provided by Russia, a fact that the international community has seized upon to argue that Iran does not need to produce its own fuel at home. Getting the fuel from abroad would help ensure the material is more closely monitored to prevent it from being further processed into weapons-grade material.

Iran, however, says it has the right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to run its own enrichment program.

Iran began moving the Russian-supplied fuel rods into the Bushehr reactor building in August and started loading the fuel into the core of the reactor in late October. With that process now complete, Salehi said all that remains to be done is to wait for the water inside the reactor's core to gradually reach a desired temperature, after which a series of tests need to be carried out.

In this photo taken on Monday, Aug. 23, 2010, and released by the International Iran Photo Agency, Iranian technicians work at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, outside the southern city of Bushehr, Iran. Iran's nuclear chief said Tuesday Nov. 23, 2010 that a malicious computer worm known as Stuxnet has not harmed the country's atomic program and accused the West of trying to sabotage it. Iran has earlier confirmed that Stuxnet infected several personal laptops belonging to employees at the Bushehr nuclear power plant but that plant systems were not affected. (AP Photo/IIPA,Ebrahim Norouzi)(Ebrahim Norouzi - AP)

Irã produziu mais de 35 quilos de urânio a 20%, diz Salehi

Sábado, 27 de Novembro de 2010

Desde que começou com o controvertido processo em fevereiro passado, o Irã produziu mais de 35 quilos de urânio enriquecido a 20%, anunciou neste sábado o diretor do organismo iraniano da Energia Atômica, Ali Akbar Salehi.

Em declarações da agência de notícias local "Isna", o responsável iraniano revelou que o país assinou acordo com a Rússia para compra de diversos produtos radiofamacêuticos.

"Até o momento, produzimos mais de 35 quilos de urânio enriquecido a 20%, uma média de três quilos por mês. Temos condições de produzir cinco quilos por mês, mas agora não precisamos", afirmou.

"Se o reator de pesquisa de Teerã não parar, seremos capazes de produzir totalmente os produtos radiofarmacêuticos que necessitamos para os tratamentos de doentes de câncer", acrescentou.

Salehi assinalou que o regime iraniano chegou "a um bom acordo com a Rússia neste assunto. Esperamos que os produtos radiofarmacêuticos possam ser importados ao Irã nos próximos meses".

Além disso, assinalou que o regime planeja lançar um novo reator de água pesada de Arak -- cidade localizada no centro do país -- "dentro de dois ou três anos".

Com Estados Unidos e Israel à frente, a comunidade internacional acusa o Irã de esconder, sob seu programa nuclear civil, outro de caráter clandestino e aspirações militares cujo objetivo seria adquirir arsenal atômico, alegação que o regime iraniano nega.

Imagem adaptada

Tehran adopts resilient stance ahead of negotiations with West

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: US says it has caused rift between Mr Ahmadinejad

and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Thursday, November 25, 2010

With talks set to restart, a key Iranian adviser says western sanctions have had no effect, write Kay Armin Serjoie and Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran

MORE THAN a year has passed since the last negotiations between Iran and world powers, which were followed by increasingly tough western sanctions, military threats and alleged technological attacks on the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme.

Now, as Iran prepares for new negotiations tentatively scheduled for December 5th, a leading adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says measures designed to pressurise Iran have been useless and that it is time for the US and other western nations “to stop fooling themselves” over their effectiveness.

Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi (52), a foreign policy expert and longtime confidant of Ahmadinejad, said in an interview on Monday that actions such as the banning of Iranian ships from European ports, a fuel blockade against Iran Air and increasing financial restrictions have had “no noticeable effect” and that the “failed” sanctions have propelled the West to restart talks – a direct contradiction of the US view.

“The delay in the negotiations has been a good opportunity for the other side to realise the effects of its political decisions,” Samareh Hashemi said. “We hope they will make the best use of it.”

The Iranian official’s words shed light on Iran’s probable stance when it meets the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany next month for the first time since October 2009.

Tehran has signalled that it will want to broaden the discussions beyond its nuclear programme, asking its six counterparts to declare their positions on Israel’s alleged possession of nuclear weapons and their commitment to nuclear disarmament. Samareh Hashemi elaborated on that request.

“If they do not state any response on these questions, it means they have not chosen the path of friendship,” he said, adding that this would not preclude talks but would force Iran to take a tougher negotiating position.

“Not answering these questions will mean they have decided not to commit to nuclear disarmament and support the Zionist regime being armed with nuclear weapons.”

It has been difficult to gauge the effect of the sanctions because of the global economic crisis and the Iranian government’s erratic economic policies.

What is clear is that the US campaign aimed at persuading nations and multinational companies to stop doing business in Iran has not led to any official change in Iran’s position regarding its nuclear programme.

Samareh Hashemi said, however, that Iran’s negotiators will consider proposed changes to a plan to swap nuclear material that failed after last year’s talks.

Under that plan, Iran was to receive special nuclear fuel for a 43-year-old US-built medical reactor in Tehran in exchange for shipping out 2,645 pounds of its low-enriched uranium stockpile.

Washington says Iran reneged on the arrangement after initially agreeing to it.

In Iran’s view, the deal, backed by the US, Russia and France, fell through after all the parties involved could not agree on the details. A similar deal struck in May by Turkey, Brazil and Iran, in which Iran would ship the uranium to neighbouring Turkey, was not accepted by western countries.

US officials have said they plan to ask Iran to now ship a higher amount of low-enriched uranium out of the country, something Iran rejected last year.

Now such a suggestion would not be turned down immediately, Samareh Hashemi said.

“It is not like we don’t listen to new proposals.” But he also said that any deal would not stop Iran from producing higher-enriched uranium, up to a level of 19.75 per cent, needed for running the medical reactor.

Iran buys from Russia and Turkey the medical isotopes that the reactor normally produces. Samareh Hashemi said Iran wants to be able to make the fuel, despite the technical challenges involved.

“Just because you can purchase something from abroad does not mean you should not produce it yourself,” he said.

Iran’s efforts to produce the higher-enriched uranium have further raised suspicions that it is attempting to increase enrichment to weapons-grade level under the guise of addressing medical needs.

Samareh Hashemi’s remarks came a week after US defence secretary Robert Gates said the sanctions had caught Iranian leaders by surprise and are causing a rift between Ahmadinejad and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“Such statements are uninformed and illustrate the wishful thinking of this American secretary of defence,” Samareh Hashemi said.

“It is surprising a person at such a high level in the US government can be so uninformed.” – (Washington Post)