Obviously this applies to Iran as well. A turkey to contemplate while
you are eating one.
-------
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1124/p09s03-coop.html
Can Obama stand up to Israel?
It won't be easy, but President Obama must hold Israel to account, both
for the two-state solution and the safety of US troops around the world.
By Helena Cobban

Washington - President Obama urgently needs to distance Washington from
the provocative � and illegal � actions the Israeli government has been
undertaking in Jerusalem.

He needs to do this to save the two-state solution that he supports
between Israelis and Palestinians. He needs to do it, too, because it
will help protect US troops around the world. Jerusalem is a core
concern for many of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, and with US forces
now facing tense situations in several majority-Muslim countries,
Washington has a stronger need than ever to keep the goodwill of the
peoples of those lands.

This is one of the main findings from a study-tour of the region I
co-led earlier this month. In Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and the West Bank,
strongly pro-US leaders underlined to us the importance of Jerusalem to
their own political fortunes and those of other American allies
throughout the Muslim world.

Israel took control of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, including the
historic, walled "Old City," in the 1967 war. Since then, Israeli
governments have invested heavily in implanting Jewish settlers into
East Jerusalem, while squeezing out the area's indigenous Palestinians,
both Muslims and Christians.

In recent months this campaign of ethnic transformation has intensified.
On Nov. 16, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans
for the construction of 900 new housing units in the southeast
settlement of Gilo. He reportedly did this right after Mr. Obama's
special envoy to the region, George Mitchell, had pleaded with him not
to. But aside from expressing "dismay," have we seen any visible
consequences from Washington? Not yet.

Today, Jerusalem is a tinderbox. If it ignites, American interests will
be at risk, because Washington is seen as acquiescing in Israel's
harmful actions there.

In decades past, when policy differences arose between Israel and the
United States, many of Israel's supporters argued that it was on the
front line against terrorism, so Americans should not second-guess its
judgments or policies.

That was never a wholly convincing argument. But now, the situation has
turned quite around. Today, it is American men and women who are on the
front lines and it is their � and our � interests that are most at risk.

By not holding Israel to account, Washington is needlessly � and
recklessly � offending hundreds of millions of Muslims on whose goodwill
our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere depend.

While in Jerusalem, we saw Israel's destructive policies firsthand. The
Jewish state is:

�Expanding the large Israeli-only settlements that ring the city to the
east, north, and south.

�Supporting smaller settler "outposts" in the heart of Jerusalem's
remaining Palestinian enclaves.

�Completing the 24-foot-high Separation Wall that encloses many
Palestinian portions of the city and slices through the center of others.

�Delegating responsibility for archaeological excavations in sensitive
areas to settler organizations that have worked feverishly � and quite
unscientifically � to push tunnels right under the historic "Muslim
Quarter" of the walled Old City.

�Making it almost impossible for the city's Palestinians to expand their
housing stock, and conducting regular demolitions of Palestinian housing
it deems "illegal."

All these Israeli actions are themselves illegal under international
law, since Israel controls East Jerusalem and the surrounding West Bank
only as a military occupying power, not a rightful sovereign government.

Imagine if, when the US military occupied Baghdad after 2003, Washington
had taken steps like these! Fortunately, it didn't. Instead, it steadily
delegated authority back to Iraqis themselves.

The US is far and away Israel's biggest external supporter. The aid
America gives to her allies should not be unconditional but used to
uphold US interests. In the Middle East, that means US dollars and
diplomacy should support a fair and sustainable peace between Israelis
and Palestinians and the rule of law in an otherwise chaotic world.

It's true that over the years many Americans have become persuaded that
Greater Jerusalem has been "unified," that it all belongs to Israel, and
indeed is "Israel's eternal capital."

The rest of the world � and international law � doesn't agree. What
people in other countries see is Israel thumbing its nose at
international law as it works to transform the city's ethnic composition.

This is disastrous for Washington's peace diplomacy, which has always
been based on the principle that the city's final disposition should be
negotiated, rather than unilaterally determined through the creation of
new facts on the ground.

In his landmark Cairo speech to Muslims in June, Obama said he would
"personally pursue" a two-state solution "with all the patience and
dedication that the task requires." Today, Obama may feel that the
political price of standing up to Israel � which few US presidents have
done � is too high. It is high � but the risk that continued
acquiescence to Israel's policies in Jerusalem poses to American lives
(and those of Palestinians and Israelis) is now even higher. This is
Obama's chance to set a new, just course for the Middle East on a firmly
pro-American basis.

He can do this by linking US aid to Israel to its compliance with
international law in the city, by supporting action by the UN Security
Council to uphold international standards there, and in other ways.

The 250,000 remaining Palestinians of Jerusalem desperately need this
action. So does Obama's peace diplomacy.

And so, too, do the 200,000-plus US service members deployed today in
tense, majority-Muslim lands.

Helena Cobban, a longtime correspondent and columnist for the Monitor,
was recently appointed executive director of the Washington-based
Council for the National Interest.

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

Go to article for a number of links to original articles.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/08/mullen-nuclear-iran-an-existential-threat-to-\
israel/

Mullen: �Nuclear Iran� an Existential Threat to Israel
Admiral Open to US Attack, Concedes War Would Be Incredibly Destabilizing
by Jason Ditz, November 08, 2009

Speaking today at the National Press Club, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen declared that �it�s very clear to me
that a nuclear weapon in Iran is an existential threat to Israel.�

Adm. Mullen has repeatedly met with Israel�s military chief Gen.
Ashkenazi, and says foiling Iran�s nuclear program is �the number one
priority for Israel.� This has been underscored in recent days as Israel
has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran.

But while Admiral Mullen said he still wanted President Obama to
continue with diplomacy, he was fully prepared to see the US attack Iran
to prevent a nuclear Iran from �undermining the stability� of the Middle
East. At the same time, Mullen admitted that attacking Iran itself
�would also be incredibly destabilizing.�

Though Western officials have repeatedly issued warnings about Iran�s
nuclear program, the IAEA has repeatedly certified that none of Iran�s
uranium has been enriched to anywhere near weapons-grade level and that
none of it is being diverted to anything but civilian use.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hDlRkRffovJlX8OT05h89h3zfgWwD9\
BRD07G3
Army chief: Avoid speculation about Hasan's faith

(AP) � 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON � The Army chief of staff says it's important for the country
not to get caught up in speculation about the Muslim faith of the
alleged Fort Hood gunman.

Gen. George Casey says he's instructed his commanders to be on the
lookout for that reaction to the killings at the Texas post.

He says focusing on the Islamic roots of the suspected shooter, Maj.
Nidal Malik Hasan (nih-DAHL' mah-LEEK' hah-SAHN'), could "heighten the
backlash" against all Muslims in the military.

Casey says diversity in the military "gives us strength."

Casey declined to answer questions about the investigation into the
shooting, but said evidence to this point shows that Hasan acted alone.
He toured Fort Hood on Friday with Army Secretary John McHugh.

Casey appeared on ABC's "This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.
AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) � The Army chief of staff says it's important for the
country not to get caught up in speculation about the Muslim faith of
the alleged Fort Hood gunman.

Gen. George Casey says focusing on the Islamic roots of Maj. Nidal Malik
Hasan (nih-DAHL' mah-LEEK' hah-SAHN') could "heighten the backlash"
against all Muslims in the military.

Casey says diversity in the military "gives us strength."

Casey declined to answer questions on ABC's "This Week" about the
investigation into the shooting, but said evidence to this point shows
that Hasan acted alone.

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

Just a few hours after the Iranian government submitted a compromise proposal on the third party uranium enrichment deal with the P5+1, European diplomats quickly, and angrily, rejected it.

“This is completely unacceptable,” one EU diplomat declared, saying the union was in the process of penning its common response, a rejection that may spell the end to the promising negotiations that have gone on all month.

In September, Iran proposed a system of third party enrichment which would allow the nation to create medical isotopes without having to enrich any uranium to levels higher than needed for its energy generation program. After intense negotiation the draft agreement had Iran exporting much of its existing low-enriched stockpile to Russia and eventually France.

The “eventually France” part was a stalling point for Iran however, as France had previously reneged on Uranium Hexafluoride shipments to them and Iranian MPs expressed concern that the French might simply keep the uranium once it got to them.

This led Iran to propose today’s compromise deal, the chief aspect of which was that they would ship the uranium out in stages rather than all at once. This would have limited the potential losses to their stockpile in the event the deal fell apart.

But for Europeans, getting Iran to hand over the bulk of its uranium all at once was the best part of the deal, and they appear uninterested in continuing negotiations without that, which will likely also make Iran all the more suspicious that France will ever give back the uranium once they get their hands on it.

Iran’s current uranium is enriched to 3.8%, but Western officials have speculated that if they chose to, the nation might be able to further enrich this uranium to the level needed for weaponization, and eventually could produce a single atomic bomb. This would require a lot of luck on Iran’s part, and since their enrichment facilities are under IAEA surveillance would also require them to make their intentions obvious before they could even begin the mad dash for a bomb.

-- Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  [ufpj-iran] FT, WSJ, WP, LAT, H: Draft Iran-P5+1 agreement
raises hopes, fears
Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:25:01 -0700






1.

Iran

IRAN NUCLEAR TALKS END AMID DOUBTS ON DEAL
By James Blitz

Financial Times (London)
October 21, 2009 -- 1448, updaged 2355 (1555 PDT -- Oct. 22, 0323 Tehran
time)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8fabc52c-be3e-11de-9195-00144feab49a.html

VIENNA -- Western diplomats expressed serious doubts on Wednesday that
Tehran would sign up to an agreement to reduce its stockpile of enriched
uranium.

As two days of talks with Iran over its nuclear program ended in Vienna
Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, said Tehran had agreed  [to] a draft proposal under which it
would send most of its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing.

However, the draft must be approved by Iran and the three other states
involved in the Vienna talks -- the U.S., France, and Russia -- by
Friday.  If Tehran does not agree to the proposal, it is likely to be
withdrawn, dealing a blow to U.S. efforts to engage with Iran over its
nuclear program.

The draft text says Iran should cut its stockpile of low-enriched
uranium by about 85 per cent by the end of this year, transferring the
fuel to France and Russia.  Both those countries, in turn, would give
Iran fuel that could be used to create medical isotopes for cancer
treatment.

Iran�s delegation chief said the Vienna talks had been constructive but
did not say whether the Iranian leadership would embrace the draft accord.

�We are fully co-operating,� said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran�s IAEA
ambassador.

�[But] we have to thoroughly study this text and . . . come back and
reflect our opinion and suggestions or comments in order to have an
amicable solution at the end of the day.�

However, Western diplomats said throughout the talks in Vienna, Iran had
repeatedly blocked the suggestion that it should remove the fuel at the
speed and in the quantities being demanded by the U.S. and France.

�Iran came to the talks highly resistant to the offer,� a Western
diplomat told the *Financial Times*.  �Its delegation came up with a
series of proposals about how it might transfer less of the fuel than
the U.S. and France are proposing or about removing it at a later date
or keeping it in Iran.

�They were given lots of opportunities to come back and change their
position but refused to do so.�

The same diplomat was pessimistic that Iran would accept the proposal
drafted by the IAEA.

�They have effectively been rejecting the proposal for the last two days
in Vienna,� said the diplomat.  �It is very hard to imagine that within
48 hours they will turn round and accept it.�

One European official said:  �The last two days in Vienna have been
something of a reality check for Obama�s officials on just how difficult
and intransigent Iran really is.�

The U.S. and its allies believe that acceptance by Iran of a deal to
ship most of its stock of low-enriched uranium out of the country by the
end of the year would be a confidence-building measure.

Western diplomats have argued that the move would delay the time by
which Iran could manufacture a nuclear bomb.

That in turn would give world powers more time to negotiate with Iran,
which has always said its program is for peaceful purposes, rather than
impose fresh international sanctions.

However, the mood in the U.S. and other Western capitals after the
Vienna talks is likely to be more gloomy.  If Iran rejects the offer on
Friday, pressure is likely to build in the U.S., France, and Britain for
the imposition of a fresh round of sanctions this year.

After a meeting with Iran on October 1, the U.S. and its allies said
they were looking to Tehran to take three moves to build confidence over
its nuclear program:  to give the IAEA access to its second enrichment
plant at Qom, which will happen on Sunday; to get progress on the
medical isotopes issue in Vienna; and to have a further meeting with
Iran�s chief negotiator next week to discuss the future of the nuclear
program.

However, it is unclear whether political directors from the six world
powers that negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program -- Britain,
France, the U.S., Russia, China, and Germany -- will meet Iran next
Wednesday in Geneva.  A representative of one of the Western powers said
there was no sign Iran was willing to do so.

2.

Asia news

IRAN URANIUM DEAL APPEARS CLOSE
By David Crawford

Wall Street Journal
October 22, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125616228904799907.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

VIENNA -- Iran edged toward a landmark agreement with the U.S. and other
powers that would curb its nuclear program, but it remained unclear
whether Tehran's leadership would give the deal its final blessing.

Iran has until Friday to sign the proposed agreement that would require
it to export most of the uranium it holds that could be used to produce
a nuclear bomb.  Iranian diplomats and delegations from the U.S.,
Russia, and France hashed out the deal this week over three days of
often contentious talks at the United Nations' International Atomic
Energy Agency.

Iran's lead representative to the talks, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said the
draft agreement was "on the right track," but cautioned that his
country's leadership had yet to endorse it.  "We have to thoroughly
study this text," he said.

"The door is open to a better future for Iran, but the process of
engagement cannot be open-ended," said Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton.  "We are not prepared to talk just for the sake of talking."

Under the proposed deal, Iran would ship most of its nuclear fuel to
Russia, where it would be processed for use in a medical research
reactor.  The amount, about 1,200 kilograms, or 2,600 pounds, of
low-enriched uranium, is significant because it is more than the 1,000
kilograms of low-enriched uranium to build a bomb.  The U.S., Israel,
and other nations have said that Tehran will be capable of building a
nuclear weapon by 2015.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner indicated he would endorse the
deal as long as Iran stuck to exporting the specified amount, according
to wire reports.  The proposed agreement doesn't prevent Iran from
enriching uranium, a capability Iranian officials have made clear they
don't intend to relinquish.

Nuclear analysts say that it would take Iran only a year, and possibly
less time, to replenish the amount of low-enriched uranium it would send
to Russia under the plan.

Despite such issues, some Western officials believe any agreement that
delays Iran's ability to make a bomb would mark an important first step
toward reining in Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

A deal would also vindicate the Obama administration's policy of
engaging with Iran on its nuclear program.  U.S. officials held a rare
round of bilateral talks with the Iranian delegation Tuesday on the
sidelines of the IAEA meeting.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, the host of the Vienna talks,
said he hoped an agreement would "complete normalization of Iran's
relations with the international community."

The negotiations looked as though they might fail earlier in the week
after Iran said it didn't want France to participate or be part of any
agreement.  Iranian officials, apparently upset over recent critical
statements by French President Nicolas Sarkozy about Iran, went as far
as to say that they didn't trust the French.  Under the proposed
framework, Iran's primary contract would be with Russia, which would be
allowed to farm out some of the processing work on the Iranian uranium
to France and other countries.

The U.S., France, and Russia also have to give the proposal final
approval by Friday, a step viewed as a formality, before it can be
implemented.

Meanwhile, Iranian police arrested suspects in a suicide bombing on
Sunday that killed more than 40 people including 15 members of the
Revolutionary Guard, Iran's police chief told the Associated Press.

Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi Moghadam blamed the Sunni rebel group Jundallah, or
Soldiers of God, which claims to represent the Baluchi ethnic minority.
Jundallah posted a statement on its Web site saying that the arrested
were innocent.  Only the suicide bomber was guilty, it said.

--Write to David Crawford at david.crawford@...
<mailto:david.crawford@...>

3.

Editorial pages

Editorials

DETENTE ON ICE

** Does an Iran that sentences an innocent American scholar to prison
really want 'engagement'? **

Washington Post
October 22, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102103646.\
html

There were hints of progress in the nuclear talks with Iran on Wednesday
as Iranian negotiators in Vienna accepted for consideration a plan under
which Iran would ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium
out of the country.  But there also was a contrary signal from Tehran
about the desire of its extremist regime for d�tente with the West.
That was the reported sentencing of Iranian-American academic Kian
Tajbakhsh to 15 years in prison on a blatantly bogus charge of espionage.

Mr. Tajbakhsh, a well-known expert on urban planning, had no role in the
protests that erupted after Iran's fraudulent presidential election in
June.  He told friends that he was "keeping his head down."  In fact he
was preparing to begin a teaching appointment at Columbia University
this fall.  But Mr. Tajbakhsh, who was educated in Britain and the
United States but has lived in Iran since 1999, was a convenient pawn
for the regime's hard-liners.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his
supporters in Iran's Revolutionary Guard are trying to prove that the
vast opposition movement against them is the product of a conspiracy by
Western intelligence agencies and nongovernmental organizations such as
the Open Society Institute, for which Mr. Tajbakhsh once worked as an
adviser.

The arrest and trial of Mr. Tajbakhsh and more than 140 other people,
including a number of opposition leaders, constitute a key element in
the coup that the regime's hard-liners have staged against more moderate
elements -- including those who genuinely favor rapprochement with the
West.  The tactical concessions that Mr. Ahmadinejad's government is
hinting at in Vienna complement the crackdown:  By striking deals with
Western leaders, the ruling clique seeks to legitimize itself at home.
If it wins the domestic power struggle, there is no chance that it will
retreat from its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons or to gain influence
over the Middle East through terrorism and militant groups such as
Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Obama administration and other Western governments say that they are
cognizant of the danger of strengthening Mr. Ahmadinejad and his
superior, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  But they have been
cautious about following the advice of Iranians such as Nobel Peace
prize winner Shirin Ebadi, who is urging the administration to talk as
much about the treatment of people such as Mr. Tajbakhsh as it does
about Iran's nuclear program.  To be sure, White House and State
Department spokesmen protested Mr. Tajbakhsh's sentence; the White House
statement said that he "embodies what is possible between our two
countries."  We hope that President Obama himself will see fit to speak
up about Mr. Tajbakhsh's case and others like it.  The fact that Tehran
is imprisoning the very people capable of building bridges between Iran
and the United States is a clear message to the president about how the
regime regards his "engagement" policy.

4.

World

Asia

Iran

U.S., IRAN MOVE CLOSER TO A NUCLEAR DEAL
By Borzou Daragahi

Los Angeles Times
October 22, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-iran22-2009oct22,0,455314\
4.story

[PHOTO (http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-10/49993106.jpg)
CAPTION: Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, discusses the ongoing talks in Vienna with France,
Russia, the U.S. and the IAEA. He says his nation is willing to send
fissile material abroad to be processed for medical purposes back in Iran.]

BEIRUT -- Deft diplomacy and regional security woes are driving Tehran
and Washington toward a deal on Iran's nuclear program, experts say,
illustrated by movement Wednesday in talks to transfer most of the
Islamic Republic's fissile material abroad to be processed for medical uses.

For three decades, Iran and the U.S. have been locked in a frustrating
diplomatic flirtation.  When one felt strong enough to offer a deal, the
other felt too weak to accept.

This time may ultimately prove to be no different.  But Iran now is
facing its greatest domestic political challenge in decades, unrest in
Pakistan and Afghanistan is seeping across its borders, and the Obama
administration is committed to creative diplomacy to resolve the standoff.

In talks in Vienna on Wednesday, Iranian, American, Russian, and French
diplomats agreed to a proposal by the U.N. nuclear monitor, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, to transfer most of Iran's
stockpile of nuclear material to Russia and France to be further
processed for a Tehran reactor used for medical purposes.

The deal, which must be signed by officials in capitals by Friday, could
fall apart if one party refuses or insists on eleventh-hour tinkering.

Modest in scope, the accord fails to address many of the West's
suspicions about Iran's nuclear program, including its continued
production of about 7 pounds of enriched uranium a day in defiance of
the United Nations Security Council, the discovery of documents that
purport to show Iran engaged in experiments consistent with a
clandestine atomic weapons program, or the recently revealed secret
enrichment facility at a Revolutionary Guard base near Qom.

It also does not address the possibility that Iran has built a secret
parallel program not subject to international scrutiny.

But the proposal would buy the U.S. and its allies a year's time by
reducing Iran's stockpile below the threshold necessary to produce a
nuclear bomb.  It also is an example of a scenario often touted by
security experts and diplomats:  Allow Iran to retain its coveted
ability to enrich uranium while building in safeguards that the material
would not be diverted to produce weapons.

The deal could serve as a framework for a broader accord on Iran's
nuclear program and possible rapprochement on other issues.

"Everybody who participated at the meeting was trying to help, trying to
look to the future and not to the past, trying to heal the wounds that
existed for many, many years," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told
reporters in Vienna.

"I very much hope that people see the big picture, see that this
agreement could open the way for a complete normalization of relations
between Iran and the international community," said ElBaradei, a Nobel
Peace Prize winner who steps down Nov. 30 after 12 years in his post.

U.S. officials view the draft agreement as a "very positive step," said
Ian Kelly, a State Department spokesman.  But he added that the
administration was circulating it widely within the government to make
sure there were no objections.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a speech in Washington,
said the U.S. was open to better relations with Iran but that the Obama
administration would not wait forever.

"We are not prepared to talk just for the sake of talking," she said.
"We appear to have made a constructive beginning.  But that needs to be
followed up by constructive actions."

U.S. attempts to reach out to Iran during the Reagan, Clinton, and
George W. Bush administrations failed to bear fruit.

The Obama administration came into office pledging to actively pursue
diplomacy with Iran.  Experts say it has managed to back Tehran into a
corner without making it feel threatened.  Using the IAEA's mandate to
help states gain access to peaceful nuclear technology as a tool to
reduce Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium lets both Iran and the West
walk away winners.

"I think that [President] Obama and his European allies have played
their hand well in using the Qom revelation to their advantage and
taking advantage of Iran's various vulnerabilities to encourage it to
find a way forward," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a nonproliferation expert
and former U.S. diplomat now at the International Institute for
Strategic Studies in London.  "The major powers have done this in a way
that gives Iran a face-saving way to make some concessions."

But the medical reactor deal also implicitly legitimizes Iran's
enrichment of uranium.  If that is Iran's goal, it could be an ideal
time for Tehran to strike a deal.

"We are a master of the enrichment technology," said Iran's envoy to the
IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh.  "But we have decided that we will receive
the fuel from the potential suppliers which are willing to do so."

The deal also represents a concession by Iran, which has not wanted to
rely on outside suppliers for its nuclear material because of
difficulties obtaining Russian fuel rods for its light-water nuclear
power plant in Bushehr.

Experts say Iran is in its most vulnerable position in years.
Revelation of the existence of the Qom facility has weakened it
diplomatically and led to intense pressure that may force it to open its
atomic facilities to closer scrutiny.

Scores have been killed in ethnic and sectarian violence on Iran's
frontiers, including a bombing Sunday that killed at least 41.  Iran is
especially concerned about the chaos in Pakistan and Afghanistan
spilling across its eastern border.

Most important, political unrest over the disputed June 12 reelection of
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues in the capital and other major
cities.  Despite a crackdown that has included imprisonments, school
expulsions, and widespread allegations of prisoner abuse, the popular
movement sparked by the election dispute remains alive, especially on
campuses.  The opposition is preparing for another major rally on Nov. 4.

This week, opposition leader and presidential runner-up Mir Hossein
Mousavi released his first YouTube interview, in which he called on
supporters to remain steadfast.

"Because the government has lost so much political capital with its own
citizenry, it's looking at nuclear negotiation to get past the events of
last summer," said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, director of Middle East studies
at Syracuse University.

Iran frequently seeks to alter the terms of a deal even after signing
on, as Britain, France and Germany learned during negotiations this
decade.  On the other hand, talks sometimes produce strong results, as
when Iran suspended uranium enrichment for two years before Ahmadinejad
became president.

"Negotiation with Iran will not be pleasant, but history shows it can
get somewhere," said Jim Walsh, a nonproliferation and security expert
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has visited Iran half
a dozen times in recent years.

Iran's hard-liners could perceive a deal as a threat to their clout and
try to sabotage it.

"The risk is that by Friday . . . hard-liners such as the newspaper
*Kayhan* and [Guardian Council chief] Ahmad Jannati will make a hue and
cry about the compromises and prevent Dr. Soltanieh from signing," said
Ahmad Shirzad, a Tehran nuclear expert and opposition supporter.  "In
principle, the reformists regard the nuclear issue as one of national
interests.  The hard-liners consider it as ideological and a matter of
prestige."

And pressing any advantage too far with Iran could backfire, said
Stephane Dudoignon, a French scholar and professor at the University of
Amsterdam.  "If they feel vulnerable, they may react in very violent
ways and enter into a logic of systematic confrontation."

Though most nations facing Iran's full plate of domestic and regional
woes might prefer to resolve the nuclear standoff in order to
concentrate on troubles closer to home, Iran may not.

"Iran is a theocratic revolutionary state," said Walsh.  "There are
issues of pride, history."

--daragahi@... <mailto:daragahi@...>

--Times staff writer Paul Richter in Washington and special
correspondents Julia Damianova in Vienna and Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran
contributed to this report.

5.

DOES IRAN DRAFT DEAL CHANGE GAME OR SHIFT PLAYERS?
By Amos Harel

Haaretz
October 22, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122801.html

Our region is a far cry from peace, as exciting as the reports from
Vienna might appear.  The actual deal between the world powers and Iran
is yet to come, but the draft agreement proposed by the IAEA is a
serious move forward, as is the positive reception of it by the sides at
the table.

The draft is a more detailed outline of a plan already presented in the
first round of talks earlier this month.  According to the draft, Iran
would transfer 1.2 tons of enriched uranium, 75 percent of its total
stock, to Russia, and then to France.  It would then get back
low-enriched uranium, which can be used for the small nuclear research
facility in Tehran, but is not weapons-grade.

This compromise slows the Iranian race for nuclear capability by a year
or two.  It certainly doesn't stop the nuclear project, and Iran is not
giving up the bomb.

Quite the contrary:  It gets international recognition of its right to
enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful purposes, while other, slower
channels toward obtaining nuclear weapons remain open.

Will the Iranians agree to the deal?  Unless they resort to their
customary foot-dragging, an answer is expected by tomorrow.

However, few would be surprised if Tehran brings up some more
last-minute reservations, to try and drag some more concessions from the
international community.

If the Iranian regime does take the IAEA draft as it is, it may well be
motivated by internal political calculations.  The elections in June,
with their allegations of fraud and the crackdown on the ensuing
protests, have shaken the confidence of the mullahs.

Refusing a deal could lead to sanctions, which would encumber the
Iranians' daily lives to a degree the regime considers dangerous.
Assuming that staying in power is it's top priority, even the nuclear
program can wait a while.

Some loopholes certainly arise from reading what we know so far about
the draft.  What will happen to the enriched uranium staying in Iran?

And, as Donald Rumsfeld once poignantly observed, "There are things we
don't know we don't know."

How many secret nuclear installation are there still in Iran, beyond the
one recently exposed at Qom?  The CIA, according to a statement it gave
to Congress, believes there could be about a dozen.  And who guarantees
Iran won't continue its pursuit of nuclear arms even as it is feted by
the international community?

The one clear winner from the progress in the talks is the United
States.  After all, President Obama vowed to stop the bomb, not the
enrichment of uranium.  His backers in Washington will praise the draft
agreement as a clear testimony to the success of his strategy of
dialogue, the complete opposite of his predecessor's course.

Obama is no Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler/Ahmadinejad, although its safe
to predict we'll hear the comparison plenty in the next few days.

But the appropriate historic parallel here is George W. Bush's policy
toward North Korea, with a similar risk of an administration falling in
love with a flawed and half-baked agreement, and going on to justify it
even if it's blatantly violated by the other side.

ISRAEL�S DILEMMA

The tightest spot in the agreement scenario is reserved for Israel,
which will have to decide if it becomes a team player, joining general
optimism, or if it maintains its profound skepticism and goes on with
threatening predictions.

Changing a political line from sour skepticism to manifest hope is a
tough move.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who earnestly believes
the mission of his second term in office is saving Israel from a second
Holocaust at the hands of Iran, will be particularly torn.  Tehran is
more than merely the top priority on Netanyahu's political agenda.  It's
also the ultimate excuse to give the Americans in avoiding any progress
in the negotiations with the Palestinians.

Most Western experts agree Israel would not attack Iran without
coordinating its moves with the United States; the approaching
compromise appears to reduce the chances of an Israeli attack in Iran in
the coming year.

But Iran would remain a sworn enemy of Israel, while the agreement, if
it is signed, will only cement the radical regime against its
opposition.  Tehran will not stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, and
it's doubtful anyone in the West will even ask it to.

The threat against the Israeli home front remains, with or without
Vienna. This makes the timing of the joint American-Israeli "Juniper
Cobra" exercise all the more interesting.  American ships, missiles and
radar system on Israeli territory on such a wide scale and with such
high-profile coverage (including a joint press conference this morning)
sends a clear message about America's commitment to Israeli security.

6.

BUYING TIME -- A VICTORY IN IRAN�S WAR OF ATTRITION
By Yossi Melman

Haaretz
October 22, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122794.html

The already distant option of military action against Iran drew even
further away yesterday, as a draft agreement on Iran's nuclear program
dealt a serious blow to chances that the United States will attack Iran.

The full draft of the agreement between six world powers and Iran is
still to be published, and the little we know leaves a lot of question
marks.  However, if the draft is confirmed and if Iran fulfills the
agreement to the letter, the Islamic Republic will have scored a major
achievement in the war of attrition it has been running against the
international community, while still relentlessly pursuing its nuclear
program.

The agreement removes all justification for an attack on Iran's nuclear
sites over claims it is violating international commitments and attempts
to obtain nuclear arms.

The military option seems to have been postponed by at least 18 months,
the time frame allocated for the agreement.  Israeli policy on Iran has
suffered a particularly strong setback, as the agreement also narrows
the possibility of significant sanctions against Tehran.

However, the agreement also signifies that Iran is, eventually,
vulnerable to pressure, and is aware of the international community's
demand and concerns over its nuclear program.  The agreement distances
Iran by at least 18 months from obtaining enriched uranium, which could
then be further enriched to produce nuclear weapons.

Although the agreement essentially contradicts the U.N. Security
Council, which demands a stop to all Iranian enrichment of uranium, it
does not contain a clause guaranteeing the removal of the sanctions
already imposed on Iran.  Those sanctions are fairly light, but their
maintenance is a reminder that Iran is still must prove the innocence of
its intentions.

At the end of the day, any compromise agreement buys time for all
involved.  Iran gets relief from international pressures without
stopping the uranium enrichment, and the West gets a time-out, while
maintaining vigilance over the Tehran's nuclear program.

The agreement can become a landmark in a long journey toward trust and
understanding between Iran and the West.  But there is also the risk the
deal is a one-off, or that Iran will break it, continuing to develop
knowledge, technology and materials needed for nuclear weaponry.  This
possibility considered, the Mossad's estimate Iran could begin producing
nuclear arms by 2014 remains as valid as it ever was.



--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     [ufpj-iran] R,DT,TT,Ind.: Rev. Guard chief threatens US &
UK but negotiators meet; situation appears confused & volatile
Date:     Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:50:35 -0700

1.
IRAN THREATENS U.S. AND BRITAIN AFTER GUARD BOMBING
By Hashem Kalantari and Hossein Jaseb

Reuters
October 19, 2009 -- 1838 EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59H0AH20091019

TEHRAN -- The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards vowed on Monday to
"retaliate" against the United States and Britain after accusing them
and neighboring Pakistan of backing militants who blew up six Guards
commanders.

Iranian media say the Sunni Muslim insurgent group Jundallah (God's
soldiers) has claimed responsibility for Sunday's bombing in
Sistan-Baluchistan province, which killed 42 people in all.

The incident threatened to overshadow talks between Iran and global
powers in Vienna on Monday intended to tackle a standoff about Iran's
nuclear ambitions.

Guards commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari said Iranian security
officials had presented documents indicating "direct ties" from
Jundallah to U.S., British, and, "unfortunately," Pakistani intelligence
organizations, the ISNA news agency said.

"Behind this scene are the American and British intelligence apparatus,
and there will have to be retaliatory measures to punish them," Jafari
was quoted as saying.

Jundallah, which has been blamed for many attacks since 2005 in the
desert province bordering Pakistan, says it is fighting to end
discrimination against Sunni Muslims by Iran's dominant Shi'ites.  Its
leader is Abdolmalek Rigi.

Jafari said Rigi and his plans were "undoubtedly under the umbrella and
the protection" of U.S., British, and Pakistani organizations, though he
limited the threat of retaliation to the United States and Britain.

"TRAINED BY U.S. AND BRITAIN"

Iranian television quoted General Mohammad Pakpour, commander of the
Guards' ground forces, whose deputy was killed in the bombing, as
saying:  "The base of the terrorists and rebels has not been in Iran.
They are trained by America and Britain in some of the neighboring
countries."

The United States, Pakistan, and Britain all condemned the bombing, the
bloodiest attack in Iran since the 1980-88 war with Iraq, and denied
involvement.

"We reject in the strongest terms any assertion that this attack has
anything to do with Britain," said a spokeswoman at Britain's Foreign
Office.  "Terrorism is abhorrent wherever it occurs."

The bombing of a mosque in Zahedan, capital of Sistan-Baluchestan,
reportedly also claimed by Jundallah, killed 25 people in May.

The poor and remote province, mostly populated by Sunni Muslims, borders
both Pakistan and Afghanistan and has frequently been the scene of
clashes between security forces, ethnic Baluch Sunni insurgents, and
heavily-armed drug smugglers.

The victims of the bombing in the city of Sarbaz included a number of
tribal chiefs who were due to hold a meeting with the Guards to promote
Shi'ite-Sunni unity.

The incident raised tension between Iran and major powers before talks
at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

On the agenda in Vienna was a proposal that Iran send low enriched
uranium abroad to be enriched further and then returned to be used in a
reactor where Iran produces medical isotopes.

The meeting of Iranian, Russian, French, and U.S. officials started
shortly after state-run Iranian television said Iran would not deal
directly with France since it had failed to deliver "nuclear materials"
in the past.

It was not immediately clear what effect this would have on the talks.

NEW CLAMPDOWN?

Analysts say Iran's governing hardliners may use the bomb attack as an
excuse to further clamp down on moderate opponents of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, whose disputed re-election in June sparked huge opposition
protests.

A study by the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment published on
Monday said Jundzllah's existence showed that Iran's control over
Sistan-Baluchestan was precarious, adding:  "It also shows the limits to
Islamic unity within the Islamic Republic itself.  This deals a blow to
the credentials of the revolution and the international revolutionary
aspects of (the late Ayatollah Ruhollah) Khomeini's doctrine," it said.

"The great paradox is that Iran, which has been active in support of
different Islamist movements outside her own territory after the
revolution, is now faced with serious armed opposition within her own
borders."

The Guards force, whose influence has increased since Ahmadinejad came
to power in 2005, played a key role in suppressing the street protests
after the election.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev offered cooperation in fighting
terrorism and extremism in a letter to Ahmadinejad.

"We are ready to cooperate with Iran in countering these threats," he
wrote, according to press service.

Ahmadinejad urged Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari in a telephone
call to help find the perpetrators of the attack, Iran's IRNA news
agency reported.

Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit told the *Daily Times*
newspaper: "Pakistan is not involved in terrorist activities . . . we
are striving to eradicate this menace."

Pakistan has backed armed Sunni Muslim groups in the past, particularly
in Afghanistan.

Relations between Iran and Pakistan have been generally good in recent
years and the neighbors are cooperating on plans to build a natural gas
pipeline.  But Iran has in the past said Jundallah members have been
operating out of Pakistan.

Some analysts believe Jundallah has evolved through shifting alliances
with parties including the Taliban and Pakistan's ISI intelligence
service, who saw it as a tool to use against Iran.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran and Augustine Anthony
in Islamabad; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

2.

Editorial

JUNDALLAH AND RELATIONS WITH IRAN

Daily Times (Pakistan)
October 20, 2009

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\10\20\story_20-10-2009_pg3_1

On Sunday, a suicide-bomber in the Iranian province of Sistan shockingly
killed seven commanders of Iran�s �lite Revolutionary Guard and up to 42
other people.  Iran�s President Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the attack
was planned inside Pakistan where an anti-Iran terrorist organization
named Jundallah has been active for the past several years.  The
Pakistani charg� d�affaires in Tehran has been called to the Foreign
Ministry in connection with what can be called the most serious
terrorist incident in Iran for some years.

Despite some understanding between Iran and Pakistan over the activity
of Jundallah inside Pakistan -- Pakistan has been surrendering arrested
anti-Iran terrorists to Tehran -- regional geopolitics is bound to
trigger unfriendly speculation.  Needless to say, Jundallah, the
Pakistan-based Iranian-Baloch terrorist organisation, has acknowledged
the latest attack in Sistan.  Iran says Jundallah leader Andolmalik Rigi
is in Balochistan; Pakistan says he is not.  Both however know that
nothing can be said for certain.

The map of hostilities in the region is extremely complicated and it
doesn�t matter that President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf
Raza Gilani have both condemned the attack.  Baloch nationalism on both
sides of the Iran-Pakistan border threatens both nation-states, and
solutions on both sides are complicated by the nature of the centralized
states and their ideological content.  The Iranian speaker of parliament
has accused the United States of having instigated the attack on Iran�s
most powerful Revolutionary Guard.  The Iranian press quotes leaders
saying the United Kingdom too is involved.

Pakistan is in trouble because it had its own Jandullah operating in
Karachi for the Taliban of South Waziristan till 2004.  It is now quite
clear that Pakistani �Jandullah� is not the �Jundallah� outfit that is
attacking inside Iran, but the modus operandi of the latter borrows much
from the terrorism of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  For instance, the use
of suicide-bombing carries the signature of madrassa-based
indoctrination even though the Sunni Baloch of Pakistan are strictly
secular and take no part in killing the Shia in Balochistan.

Iran has a complex code of interpretation when it comes to explaining to
its people certain developments on its eastern border.  At the higher
level of statesmanship, it is engaged with Pakistan on what can be
called the biggest energy project of South Asia, called the
Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline project.  At the domestic political level, it
looks at Pakistan as a state that favors the Taliban -- at the top of
the list of enemies in Tehran -- and aligns with Iran�s arch-enemy, the
United States.  This in itself gives rise to a complex imagined network
of intrigue and double-dealing.

Hanging from this is the accusation that the U.S. is funding Jundallah
to create trouble in Sistan to �balance� the trouble Iran is supposedly
making in Iraq.  Many Pakistanis buy into this.  But at the same time,
Iran becomes unhappy when the U.S. and Pakistan start thinking of
�talking� to their separate Talibans.  It cannot help thinking that both
will somehow bring the Taliban back to power in Kabul and thus endanger
the non-Pashtun population of Afghanistan as well as endanger Iran�s
security on its eastern border.

There is a clear break here between what the world thinks and what Iran
thinks.  The world thinks that the U.S. unwittingly strengthened Iran�s
regional position by destroying two regimes:  Saddam Hussein�s in the
west and the Taliban�s in the east.  But Tehran continues to think that
the U.S. and its allies are trying to get Iran into a challenging
regional pincers movement.  Unfortunately, Pakistan can hardly reassure
Iran in this regard because of its declining writ of the state in
Balochistan and elsewhere.

Within this extremely murky strategic thinking, Iran has acted in its
own national interest.  It has given shelter to �actors� from Pakistan
who promised to create difficulties for the U.S.  It has provided safe
haven to runaway warlords from Afghanistan it thought could at least
temporarily damage the unity of the Taliban.  It is known to have
�facilitated� the passage of Al Qaeda terrorists from Pakistan to Iraq
in 2003, which then actually led to the massacre of the Shia there.

But in many ways, Iran promises to become as important an ally of
Pakistan as China, mainly because of its role as a supplier of energy.
At the same time, however, Pakistan has to retain the option of
international support, including that of the Arabs -- something for
which Iran�s current government doesn�t care much.  Hence a measure of
tolerable bilateral tension.

3.

ARROGANT POWERS SUPPORT ENEMIES SEEKING TO UNDERMINE NATIONAL UNITY: LEADER

Tehran Times
October 20, 2009

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=205930

TEHRAN -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali
Khamenei has stated that the enemies seeking to undermine the country�s
unity and security are supported by the arrogant powers.

�The crime committed by bloodthirsty terrorists in Baluchistan exposed
the evil face of the enemies of (the country�s) security and unity, who
are supported by certain arrogant powers� spy agencies, more than ever
before,� he said in a statement issued on Monday.

The Leader made the remarks one day after a terrorist attack killed over
40 people, including five senior commanders of the Islamic Revolution
Guards Corps, in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan.

Ayatollah Khamenei said the assassination of dedicated people like
Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Ground Forces Deputy Commander Nour-Ali
Shoushtari, several other IRGC commanders, and a number of Shia, Sunni,
Persian, and Baluchi citizens is a crime against the country, and
especially against Sistan-Baluchestan Province.

The enemies should be aware that such acts of savagery will not
undermine the unity of Iranian ethnic groups and followers of different
schools of Islamic jurisprudence, he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei also offered his condolences to the families of the
people who lost their lives in the deadly attack that took place in the
city of Pishin, near the border with Pakistan, on Sunday.

4.

World

Middle East

DOUBTS LOOM OVER NUCLEAR AGREEMENT
By Kim Sengupta

Independent (London)
October 20, 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/doubts-loom-over-nuclear-agr\
eement-1805636.html

Western powers began talks with Iran about its nuclear program yesterday
amid confusion as to whether a viable agreement could be reached
following combative statements from Tehran.

Iranian officials appeared to rule out the main demand made by the West
that enrichment of uranium should take place abroad and not in the
Islamic Republic -- a safeguard against the government of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad acquiring a nuclear arsenal.

Tehran had agreed in principle to having the uranium shipped out of the
country to be turned into fuel rods and then sent back and there was
speculation that the talks -- being held in Vienna under the auspices of
the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) -- with the U.S.,
Russia, and France would lead to the transfer of 85 per cent of its
current stock.

However, a number of officials appeared in the Iranian media to
challenge this.  Abolfazl Zohrehvand, a senior aide to the country's
leading nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, said enrichment to levels of
five per cent would take place outside the country.  He added:  "The
importance of this is that Iran will retain the techniques of
enrichment. . . . And we will keep our sites and research centers."

The Iranian nuclear agency spokesman Ali Shirzadian stated if the talks
"do not bring about the desired result," Tehran would continue its
enrichment program.  "We will never abandon our right to enrich," he said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, shrugged off these
rumblings, saying yesterday's talks in Vienna had got "off to a good
start" and would continue today.  But observers noted that Iran had only
sent a lower-level technical delegation and not Mr. Jalili, casting
doubt on a final deal.

It was also not clear what impact the sudden announcement that Tehran's
delegation would not deal directly with Paris would have on the
tentative agreement for Iran to ship uranium to to France.  State-run
Iranian television stated that France had failed to deliver "nuclear
materials" in the past and that Paris had "interfered" in attempts to
improve relations with the IAEA.

The seemingly tougher Iranian stance came as Tehran accused Pakistan,
the U.S. and Britain of funding a Sunni militant group, Jundallah, which
carried out a weekend suicide bombing attack that killed 42 people,
including six senior officers in the Revolutionary Guards. Mohammed Ali
Jafari, the Guards' commander-in-chief, said:  "Behind this scene are
the U.S. and British intelligence apparatus, and there will be
retaliatory measures to punish them.  We have also got documents proving
the involvement of the Pakistanis."  The U.S. and U.K. strenuously
denied involvement.

Talks earlier this month in Geneva had led to hopes among Western
diplomats that Iran would turn over more than 1,200kg of low-enriched
uranium.  The amount is viewed as significant as 1,000kg is the accepted
threshold of the amount of low-enriched uranium needed to produce
weapons-grade uranium.

U.S. authorities have estimated that Iran would be in a position to
produce nuclear weapons by 2015.  If most of that stock is taken out of
the country before being enriched, the argument goes, Tehran would not
be in a position to manufacture weapons-grade uranium.  However, David
Albright of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, said:  "It
buys some time.  But Iran could replace even 1,200 kilograms of
low-enriched uranium in about a year."

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

More details - this is not the usual air attack prediction but
infiltration and attack.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/15/report-israel-eyes-ground-strikes-in-iran-nex\
t-year/
Report: Israel Eyes Ground Strikes in Iran Next Year
Israeli Elite Forces Could Sabotage Facilities, Assassinate Scientists
by Jason Ditz, October 15, 2009

Le Canard Encha�n�, a French weekly newspaper famous for its humorous
tone and penchant for uncovering leaks, is reporting on indications that
the Israeli military is planning to launch ground strikes into Iranian
territory some time after December.
Israeli Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi

The report cites a meeting between Israeli army chief Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi
and French Gen. Jean-Louis Georgelin in which Ashkenazi reportedly said
the military had abandonded plans to bomb Iran, but was considering
deploying its elite forces to the nation to launch ground attacks instead.

In this event, the Israeli forces would sneak into Iran and conduct
sabotage missions against the nation�s nuclear infrastructure. They
would also attempt to assassinate top scientists. The claim was
bolstered by reports that the Israeli military has ordered reservists
from its elite units home in recent weeks and placed an order for combat
ration for the soldiers.

The Israeli government has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, citing
the nation�s civilian nuclear program as a grave threat. Despite reports
to the contrary, they insist they have not abandoned plans to attack.
++++++++++++++++++++++
�ISRAEL MAY ATTACK IRAN AFTER DECEMBER�
By JPost.com

Jerusalem Post
October 15, 2009

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255547721120

Israel is making preparations to carry out military attacks in Iran
after December, a French magazine reported overnight Wednesday.

According to the report in *Le Canard Encha�n�* quoted by Israel Radio,
Jerusalem has already ordered high-quality combat rations from a French
food manufacturer for soldiers serving in �lite units and has also asked
reservists of these units staying abroad to return to Israel.

The magazine further reported that in a recent visit to France, IDF
Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi told his French
counterpart Jean-Louis Georgelin that Israel was not planning to bomb
Iran, but might send �lite troops to conduct activities on the ground there.

These, according to the magazine, could involve the sabotage of nuclear
facilities as well as assassinations of top Iranian nuclear scientists.

Israel has recently toned down rhetoric against Iran so as not to hinder
U.S. diplomatic efforts for Iranian transparency regarding its nuclear
program, but neither Jerusalem nor Washington have so far made any
unequivocal statements to the effect that the military option against
Iran was no longer being considered.

Israel has maintained that it has the military capability to tackle Iran
on its own if sanctions against the Islamic Republic prove ineffective.

Israel accuses Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.  Teheran
maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful.

The *Jerusalem Post* could not confirm *Le Canard Encha�n�*'s report.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

DEBKAfile special report

ISRAEL MAY ATTACK IRAN AFTER DECEMBER - LE CANARD ENCHAINE

Debka
October 15, 2009

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6321

According to an unconfirmed report in the French *Le Canard Encha�n�* of
Wednesday, Oct. 14, Israel is preparing to bomb Iranian nuclear sites
and pro-Iranian targets across the Middle East after December 2009.  The
prestigious satirical weekly reports that the IDF has notified special
forces reservists abroad to get ready to return home in November for
immediate drafting to the military operation against Iranian nuclear
facilities.  The weekly further reports Israel has ordered combat
rations from a French firm for these reservists to stay on long-term
missions far from home.

French military sources said that Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi met
secretly in France with U.S. armed forces Chief of Staff Adm. Mike
Mullen and French Chief of Staff Gen. Jean-Louis Georgelin, to inform
that Israel planned to attack Iran after December, when it became clear
that the talks between the six powers and Tehran had failed to produce
any benefit.

According to *Le Canard Encha�n�*, Ashkenazi said Israel would not
attack Iran by air but rather use ground forces in coordinated
operations on several Middle East fronts.

DEBKAfile's military sources add that if the information leaked to the
newspaper from French joint staffs sources is correct -- and not a red
herring to disguise the impending attack's real nature -- the IDF may be
expected to branch out from Iran's nuclear facilities to target its
allies too, such as Syrian air force and missile batteries, Hezbollah
bases in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

*Le Canard Encha�n�* is not alone in predicting an Israeli attack on
Iran after December.  A former Israeli deputy defense minister, Efraim
Sneh, commented to U.S. and British media several times in the past week
that if the U.S. fails to rally fellow powers' support for toughened
sanctions against Iran by Christmas, Israel will have to attack its
nuclear installations.  It may be assumed that Sneh was not just
guessing on his own initiative.

Another sign of the growing military tensions surrounding the Iranian
nuclear program was a phone conversation late Wednesday night between
President Barack Obama and French President Nicola Sarkozy.  The two
discussed Iran.  After Hillary Clinton failed to swing Russian leaders
round to supporting sanctions, when she visited Moscow Tuesday,
DEBKAfile's Washington sources report that Obama has decided to work
with the French president for efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program.


--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

Join national war tax resisters http://nwtrcc.org

Alan Grimes wrote:
> Carol Moore in DC wrote:
>
>
>> Iranians Love U.S. Secessionists because they seek to undermine the
>> "Great Satan" (or "Evil Empire")... and yet Imperial U.S./Israel war on
>> Iran and the ensuing economic fiasco, civil liberties abuses and even
>> nuclear war are the things most likely to turn tens of millions of
>> Americans INTO secessionists and break up the U.S.. Ironic, eh??
>>
>
> I'm a fairly hard-core secessionist too these days.
>
> The only way to keep the sociopaths/psychopaths and other control freaks
> from trying to rule the hill is to chop it up into as many tiny hills as
> possible.
>
> The UN never served my interests, and now, even the US federal
> government has turned against me on every front, on every issue, and in
> every way.
>
> I am currently in a civil disobedience mode. The federal government is
> dead to me. I don't pay taxes, I don't care what crap they want to call
> a law. They're dead to me. I'm in revolt.
>
>
>

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

Carol Moore in DC wrote:

> Iranians Love U.S. Secessionists because they seek to undermine the
> "Great Satan" (or "Evil Empire")... and yet Imperial U.S./Israel war on
> Iran and the ensuing economic fiasco, civil liberties abuses and even
> nuclear war are the things most likely to turn tens of millions of
> Americans INTO secessionists and break up the U.S.. Ironic, eh??

I'm a fairly hard-core secessionist too these days.

The only way to keep the sociopaths/psychopaths and other control freaks
from trying to rule the hill is to chop it up into as many tiny hills as
possible.

The UN never served my interests, and now, even the US federal
government has turned against me on every front, on every issue, and in
every way.

I am currently in a civil disobedience mode. The federal government is
dead to me. I don't pay taxes, I don't care what crap they want to call
a law. They're dead to me. I'm in revolt.


--
New president: Here we go again...
Chemistry.com: A total rip-off.
Powers are not rights.

Iranians Love U.S. Secessionists because they seek to undermine the
"Great Satan" (or "Evil Empire")... and yet Imperial U.S./Israel war on
Iran and the ensuing economic fiasco, civil liberties abuses and even
nuclear war are the things most likely to turn tens of millions of
Americans INTO secessionists and break up the U.S..  Ironic, eh??
__________________________
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/sale1.1.1.html
  Secession Is the Future
Kirkpatrick Sale Talks To Iranians About the Death of Empires
by Kirkpatrick Sale

The following interview with Middlebury Institute director Kirkpatrick
Sale appeared in the Kayhan International newspaper of Tehran, Iran on
July 21, 2009, and in the Persian language Kayhan News the same day. The
interviewer was Seyed Yasser Jebraily.

You have argued that the major theme of contemporary history is the
break-up of great empires. Would you elaborate on this and also evaluate
the current status of U.S. Empire, I mean its failures and successes?
(see link for rest)
_________________________________

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=108556&sectionid=3510302
American secessionist leader: US could break up fast
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:42:43 GMT
Font size : [Increase] [Normal] [Decrease]
Professor Thomas Naylor of the Second Vermont Republic
The following is the transcript of a Press TV recent interview with
emeritus professor of economics at Duke University, author and founder
of the Second Vermont Republic movement Thomas Naylor.

Press TV: First of all when does the secessionist movements date back to
and why is the United States facing a growing number of secessionists today?

Prof. Naylor: The legacy of secession goes all the way back to our
inception in 1776. The United States was created by secession from England.

Press TV: Professor, what is the movement fighting for?
(see link for rest)

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

Hmmmm, how did that happen??
________

September 21, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

You may have heard today's prominent news stories about President
Obama's military commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, and his
request to greatly increase the presence of U.S. armed forces there.

The Libertarian Party opposes this plan. We want to end the war, not
escalate it.

In September 2008, the Libertarian National Committee adopted this
resolution:

     WHEREAS the government of the United States should return to its
     historical libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances,
     foreign quarrels, and military adventures; and

     WHEREAS the stability and security of Afghanistan lie outside the
     jurisdiction of the government of the United States; and

     WHEREAS the Libertarian Party recognizes that the only legitimate
     role of the military is to defend America against direct attack or
     the imminent threat of attack;

     THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee
     calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed
     forces of the United States from Afghanistan, without undue delay.

Democrats often claim to oppose foreign wars. But after eight months in
total control of Congress and the White House, Democrats have done
nothing to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I hope you will support us in our efforts to oppose this war.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee


--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

Someone just told me that one of the contacts at
http://libertarians4peace.net no longer worked.

So I'm emailing everyone currently on the web page list to see if they
still want to be there. (You might be there from 4 years ago and not
even remember!  Or it ight be an old email address you need changed, also.)

Plus if YOU want to get on as a contact for networking purposes -
assuming you agree with our statement of principles on the page - send a
holler.

It's true we aren't very active currently, but that could change -
especially if Obama let's Israel bomb the hell out of Iran and then
joins in for a big nasty war.

Meanwhile, keep reading http://antiwar.com every day to see what's going
on in our big world filled with governmental (and private) force and fraud!!

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

What excuse to attack Iran can Israel come up with now??

________________________________________________

OBAMA WELCOMES ADVANCE IN IRAN TALKS
By James Blitz (Geneva), Daniel Dombey (Washington), and Harvey Morris
(United Nations)

Financial Times (London)
October 1, 2009 (updated Oct. 2)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/acea179e-aea6-11de-96d7-00144feabdc0.html

President Barack Obama on Thursday hailed what he said was a tentative
agreement that could help diminish tensions over Tehran�s nuclear
program after the most extensive U.S.-Iranian talks in 30 years.

Speaking at the White House after the end of international negotiations
in Geneva, Mr. Obama said the U.S. was looking for swift and concrete
action by Tehran after a day of constructive talks.

Both Iran and its interlocutors, which also included Russia, China,
Britain, France, and Germany, said the two sides had agreed to resume
talks on the nuclear file this month and that the Islamic Republic would
allow international inspectors to see a previously undeclared nuclear
site near the city of Qom, dramatically revealed last week.

But the U.S. president added the diplomatic talks had agreed in
principle that Iran would ship abroad low enriched uranium -- which the
West fears could be developed into fissile material for a weapon -- for
processing into medical uranium.

A senior U.S. official said that under such a deal most of Iran�s stock
of enriched uranium could be taken out of the country.

The proposal, based on a U.S.-Russian initiative, comes barely two weeks
after Mr. Obama was praised by Moscow for redrawing missile plans it had
opposed.  �The Russians seem to have delivered this,� said Cliff
Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a U.S.-based consultancy.

However, the details must still be worked out.

Mr. Obama called on Iran to �grant unfettered access to International
Atomic Energy Agency inspectors within two weeks,� noting that Mohamed
ElBaradei, IAEA head, was due to travel to Tehran shortly.  �Today�s
meeting was a constructive beginning,� the U.S. president said.  �But it
must be followed by constructive action by Iran�s government.�

The most symbolic meeting on Thursday occurred when William Burns, the
senior U.S. representative, held 45-minute bilateral talks with Saeed
Jalili, Iran�s negotiator.

Over the past 10 years, the U.S. has discussed issues such as
Afghanistan and Iraq with Iran, and last year Mr. Burns attended an
international meeting with Iran, but lacked full powers to negotiate.
By contrast, a U.S. diplomat described Thursday�s meeting as �direct and
candid.�

Western diplomats regard Tehran�s readiness to reopen substantive talks
on the nuclear file as crucial if there is to be any agreement on
reining in Iran�s program, which has moved ahead over the past year.

However, many diplomats voice concerns that Iran may be stalling for
time, pointing to a series of unproductive meetings between Tehran and
the Europeans in the past.

Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday backed
legislation that could limit international companies that sell refined
oil to Iran from doing business with the U.S.

2.

World

Middle East

Iran

IRAN, MAJOR POWERS REACH AGREEMENT ON SERIES OF POINTS
By Glenn Kessler

** Obama Sees a 'Constructive Beginning' **

Washington Post
October 2, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100101294.\
html

GENEVA -- The United States and Iran tentatively stepped back from
looming confrontation on Thursday, as the Islamic Republic reached an
agreement with major powers that would greatly reduce Iran's stockpile
of low-enriched uranium and reset the diplomatic clock for a solution to
Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The outcome, which President Obama in Washington called a "constructive
beginning," came after 7 1/2 hours of talks in an 18th-century villa on
the outskirts of Geneva that included the highest-level bilateral
meeting between the two countries since relations were severed three
decades ago after the Iranian revolution.  But the difficulties that lie
ahead were illustrated when the chief Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili,
held a triumphant news conference at which he denounced "media
terrorism," insisted that Iran has always fully met its international
commitments, and refused even to acknowledge a question from an Israeli
reporter.

The sudden show of cooperation by Tehran reduces for now the threat of
additional sanctions, which has been made repeatedly by the United
States and others over the past week after the revelation of a secret
Iranian nuclear facility.  The United States will need to keep the
pressure on Iran to avoid being dragged into a process without end.

Under the tentative deal, Iran would give up most of its enriched
uranium to Russia in order for it to be converted into desperately
needed material for a medical research reactor in Tehran.  Iran also
agreed to let international inspectors visit the newly disclosed
uranium-enrichment facility in Qom within two weeks, and then to attend
another meeting with negotiators from the major powers by the end of the
month.  The series of agreements struck at the meeting was in itself
unusual because, in the past, the Iranian negotiators have said they
would get back with an answer -- and then fail to do so.

U.S. and other diplomats present at the talks said the tone of the
Iranian delegation privately was not different from the public posture,
with much of the morning devoted to lengthy exchanges of official
talking points.  But they said the mood shifted subtly after the
participants broke for lunch.  The chief U.S. negotiator, Undersecretary
of State William J. Burns, spent 45 minutes in a small sitting room with
Jalili while the other diplomats gathered in the back yard of the Villa
Le Saugy, admiring the views of the Swiss Alps and Lake Geneva as they
mingled in small groups and ate from a cold buffet of fish and salads.

The negotiators -- including diplomats from Britain, France, Germany,
Russia, China and the European Union -- never returned to the conference
table but continued huddling in a rotating series of groups to structure
the agreements.

The outcome of the talks was immediately criticized by former U.N.
ambassador John R. Bolton, who as a Bush administration official balked
at George W. Bush's efforts to entice Iran into negotiations.  "They've
now got the United States ensnared in negotiations," he said.  "This is
like the movie 'Groundhog Day.'"  But another Bush-era official, former
undersecretary of state R. Nicholas Burns, said that even if talks fail,
Obama will have demonstrated that he tried hard to make diplomacy work
-- and will win greater support for sanctions.

Despite the drama of sudden movement on an issue that has been in
stalemate for seven years, all sides agreed that they are months, even
years away from a resolution.  The ultimate U.S. goal is suspension of
Iran's uranium-enrichment activities -- and Tehran insists that it will
never take that step.

"This is only a start, and we shall need to see progress through some of
the practical steps we have discussed today," said European Union
foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who headed the delegation of six
nations meeting with Iran.  He said he hoped for "rapid and intense"
negotiations to follow.

U.S. officials have asserted that the revelation of the Qom facility had
diplomatically isolated Iran, leaving it little choice but to cooperate
or face new sanctions.  Diplomats said the term "sanctions" was never
uttered during the lengthy day, though oblique reference was made to a
statement issued by foreign ministers of the group last week.  That
statement raised the possibility of more sanctions if no negotiating
track was soon established.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki -- who was given a rare visa
by the Obama administration to visit Washington on Wednesday -- told
reporters in New York that Iran is not building any other nuclear
facilities, saying the "only case under construction is Qom."  He said
that the Geneva talks took place in a "constructive" atmosphere and that
Iran is committed to continuing negotiations with the six powers,
including the possibility of a future presidential summit.  But he also
made it clear that Iran would not yield to pressure to suspend its
enrichment of uranium.

The agreement concerning the medical reactor was unexpected, and U.S.
officials cast it both as a way to respond to a pressing Iranian need
and to extend the time available to hold negotiations.  "It is a
confidence-building measure which will, to some extent, alleviate
tension and buy some more diplomatic space to pursue the more
fundamental problem of Iran's nuclear program," said one senior U.S.
official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in an interview last week with
the *Washington Post* and *Newsweek*, said he was seeking international
assistance to fuel the reactor, which is closely observed by
international inspectors and produces medical isotopes to help detect
and treat diseases.  He said the reactor, which requires uranium
enriched to 19.75 percent, is running out of fuel because countries had
refused to sell it to Iran.

In the meantime, Iran's Natanz reactor has accumulated enough
low-enriched uranium gas that it, in theory, could convert it to enough
weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon.  Under the tentative
agreement, U.S. officials said, Iran would export most of its 3,300
pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, which would then convert it to
the material needed for the reactor.  France would also assist in
fabricating the material into metallic rods for use in the medical reactor.

Officials said the removal of the low-enriched uranium from Iranian soil
should lessen concerns -- particularly in Israel -- that time was
running out for a negotiated solution.  Russia has long offered to
enrich uranium for Iran, an idea never fully embraced by either Iran or
the Bush administration, but U.S. officials insisted that the deal was
not intended as a template for a future solution.

Under U.N. Security Council resolutions, Iran is prohibited from
exporting nuclear material, so a new resolution would probably need to
be approved for the deal to go through.

Obama said at the White House that the United States has "entered a
phase of intensive international negotiations" and warned that "pledges
of cooperation must be fulfilled."  He also said Iran now has "a path
towards a better relationship with the United States."

The conversation between Burns, the American negotiator, and Jalili was
described by one U.S. official as "direct and candid."  It focused
mostly on the nuclear issue but also included a "frank exchange" on
human rights.  Several other U.S. officials also took the opportunity to
meet one-on-one with Iranian counterparts, with one raising the case of
three American hikers being held in Iran.

Fifteen months ago, Burns was in Geneva at a similar meeting but, under
rules set by the Bush administration, was barely permitted to speak and
was ordered to avoid contact with Jalili.  This time, the depth and
length of their conversation may have been unusual in the annals of
U.S.-Iranian diplomatic discourse, but Jalili did not seem to make much
note of it.  Asked about the conversation, he simply said he had spoken
individually to many of the diplomats at the meeting.

--Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations and Anne E. Kornblut in
Washington contributed to this report.

3.

Middle East news

INSPECTORS PREPARE TO VISIT QOM FACILITY
By David Crawford and Joe Lauria

Wall Street Journal
October 2, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125444482868158131.html

Iran's agreement to permit inspectors to examine its recently disclosed
uranium-enrichment facility could clear the way for the International
Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, to dispatch a team
within two weeks if no obstacles arise.

On Thursday, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei accepted an
invitation from Tehran to go to Iran on Saturday to work out the
logistics of the inspections, officials said.

In addition to examining the operation in Qom, in north central Iran,
inspectors will be looking for signs of additional facilities.  Yet the
IAEA could face a number of legal hurdles if inspectors try to go beyond
their immediate mandate, U.N. officials say.

The inspectors will be restricted to requesting visits to facilities
that Iran has declared part of its nuclear program, for example.  Iran
has refused to ratify a 1992 protocol that allows inspectors access to
any site they believe may be nuclear-related.

Tehran has described the facility at Qom as a pilot project.  Given its
limited capacity, it would be unsuitable to enrich uranium for civilian
nuclear-power purposes but could be used to produce bomb-grade fuel,
U.S. officials say.

Though the IAEA can dispatch inspectors on short notice, governments can
employ various delaying tactics to postpone the inspections.

The IAEA designs a specific program for each nuclear facility it
monitors, according to a person familiar with its inspections, with the
goal of preventing the use of nuclear material for a weapon.  Details of
that strategy are confidential, a person familiar with the monitoring
said, but many of the tools are known.

Once in Iran, for example, IAEA inspectors are expected to consider
changes to the building design.  The agency is allowed to modify the
design to allow for future inspections once nuclear material is introduced.

Inspectors could eventually install special cameras, neutron detectors,
and devices to detect activity or movement of sensitive equipment or
fuel.  To prevent tampering, the IAEA inspection teams mark their
equipment with special seals.  Should an object be moved or altered, the
seal would be damaged, the person familiar with the monitoring said.

IAEA inspectors also take dust samples to determine if nuclear
enrichment has secretly occurred.

Inspectors schedule inspections based on an assessment of the "maximum
time period I can safely leave this site unattended," the person said.
A site that processes minimal amounts of low-enriched nuclear material
is inspected less often than a site producing large amounts of plutonium
-- a possible component of nuclear weapons -- the person said.

In the past, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has hinted that Iran has
other nuclear sites it hasn't disclosed to the IAEA.  Iranian Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said at a U.N. news conference Thursday that
Iran has no undeclared nuclear sites.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said in New York last week that IAEA regulations require
that a country declare the existence of a nuclear enrichment facility
only six months before enrichment begins.

IAEA and U.N. officials reject Iran's interpretation of those
regulations.  But inspectors will need agreement from Iranian
authorities to enter any new sites unless the presence of undeclared
nuclear material is suspected, according to the agreement between the
IAEA and its member countries.

If nuclear material is suspected in a facility the inspectors can invoke
"special inspection rights" to demand entry.  But "if the government
says no, what are you going to do?" a U.N. official asked.  "You are not
going to force yourself."

--Write to David Crawford at david.crawford@...
<mailto:david.crawford@...> and Joe Lauria at newseditor@...
<mailto:newseditor@...>

4.

WEST SKEPTICAL OF IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL
By Warren P. Strobel and Margaret Talev

McClatchy Newspapers
October 2, 2009

http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/1484135.html

GENEVA -- Iran agreed Thursday to ship most of its enriched uranium to
Russia for refinement, in what Western diplomats called a significant,
but interim, measure.

The deal eases concerns over Tehran�s nuclear program because it
provides a measure of certainty that the uranium will not be used to
make weapons.

The agreement was announced after more than seven hours of high-level
talks in Geneva among Iran and representatives of the five permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.

The talks also featured the highest-level encounter between U.S. and
Iranian officials in three decades.

Iran also pledged that within weeks it will allow the inspection of a
previously covert uranium enrichment facility.  The head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced plans
to travel to Tehran to work out the details.

In Washington, President Barack Obama said the talks marked �a
constructive beginning� and showed the promise of renewed engagement
with Iran, but he added that �going forward, we expect to see swift
action.  We�re not interested in talking for the sake of talking.�

In Geneva, Javier Solana, the European Union�s foreign policy chief,
said he hoped the talks, which are to reconvene later this month, were
the start of intensive engagement with Iran after a 15-month pause.

Despite the signs of progress, however, Iran gave no ground on demands
that it halt the enrichment of uranium, which can be used for civilian
purposes -- or to make weapons.

Skeptics, including the Obama administration, Israel, and many lawmakers
on Capitol Hill, also worry that Tehran will string out diplomacy with
small concessions while it continues covert work toward fashioning a
nuclear weapon.

�The overall problem of Iran�s nuclear program remains,� said a senior
U.S. official speaking anonymously.

Under the deal, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was �most� of
its 3,300 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be
further refined.  French technicians then would fabricate it into fuel
rods and return it to Tehran to power a reactor that�s used to make
isotopes for nuclear medicine.

During the talks at a villa outside Geneva, Undersecretary of State
William Burns, the State Department�s No. 3 official, met for about 45
minutes with Saeed Jalili, Iran�s chief nuclear negotiator.  At that
session, which officials described as businesslike, Burns raised Iran�s
human rights record, the senior U.S. official said.

5.

IRAN AGREES TO SEND ENRICHED URANIUM TO RUSSIA
By Steven Erlanger and Mark Landler

New York Times
October 2, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/middleeast/02nuke.html

GENEVA -- Iran agreed on Thursday in talks with the United States and
other major powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant
near Qom to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send
most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran to be turned
into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes, senior
American and other Western officials said.

Iran�s agreement in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for
processing -- if it happens -- would represent a major accomplishment
for the West, reducing Iran�s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly
and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.

If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the
accomplishment would be hollow, a senior American official conceded.

The officials described the long day of talks here with Iran, the first
such discussions in which the United States has participated fully, as a
modest success on a long and complicated road.  Iran had at least
finally engaged with the big powers on its nuclear program after more
than a year and had agreed to some tangible, confidence-building steps
before another meeting with the same participants before the end of this
month.

But despite the relatively promising outcome, the Obama administration
was at pains to strike a cautious tone, given Iran�s history of
duplicity, its crackdown on its own people after the tainted June
presidential elections and President Obama�s concern about being
perceived as na�ve or susceptible to a policy of Iranian delays.

Mr. Obama, speaking in Washington, called the talks �constructive,� but
warned Tehran that he was prepared to move quickly to more stringent
sanctions if negotiations over Iran�s nuclear ambitions dragged on.

�We�re not interested in talking for the sake of talking,� Mr. Obama
told reporters in the White House Diplomatic Reception Room.  �If Iran
does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations,
then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely.�

France and Britain have spoken of December as an informal deadline for
Iran to negotiate seriously about stopping enrichment and cooperate
fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency.  American officials
say that timeline is �about right,� but Iran continues to insist that it
has the right to enrich uranium for what it calls a purely civilian program.

Mr. Obama said Tehran must allow international inspectors into the site
near Qum within the next two weeks, a timeline Iran�s chief nuclear
negotiator, Saeed Jalili, agreed to here.

The atomic energy agency�s director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, will
travel to Tehran this weekend to discuss the details and timing of the
inspections, officials said.  But the Americans also want Iran to
cooperate with the inspectors and make personnel and documents about the
site near Qum available.

Besides the scheduling of another meeting, the main practical
accomplishment on Thursday was Iran�s agreement in principle -- to be
worked out by experts later this month in Vienna -- to ship what
American officials called �most� of its declared stockpile of lightly
enriched uranium to Russia and France to be turned into nuclear fuel.

While American officials refused to specify the amount, other Western
officials said it could be 1,200 kilograms, or more than 2,600 pounds,
of enriched uranium, which could be as much as 75 percent of Iran�s
declared stockpile.  While there may be hidden stocks of enriched
uranium, such a transfer, if it occurs, �buys some time� for further
negotiations, a senior American official said.

Given the assessment that Iran has made enough low-enriched uranium to
produce at least one nuclear weapon at some time in the future, a sharp
reduction in its stockpile would be �a confidence-building measure to
alleviate tensions and buy us some diplomatic space,� the official said.

Israel, the nation most concerned about a nuclear-armed Iran, has been
informed of the discussions, another American official said.

Iran�s uranium is enriched to about 3.5 to 5 percent, the officials
said; the Tehran reactor for making medical isotopes, last powered by
Argentine-made fuel in 1993, needs uranium enriched to 19.75 percent,
still far below weapons grade.  And that uranium must then be fabricated
into metal rods for the reactor.

Iran had told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it needed fuel
for the Tehran reactor before December 2010.  Washington, with its
allies, pushed the agency to offer Iran the fuel, but made from Iran�s
own enriched uranium as a feedstock.  Mr. Jalili agreed to that in
principle on Thursday.

The talks were between Iran and the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain
and France � as well as Germany, and led by the European Union�s foreign
policy chief, Javier Solana.

The tone of the discussions, held just outside Geneva, was considerably
more positive than just a week ago, after the United States revealed the
existence of the uranium enrichment site near Qom and, with its European
allies, threatened Iran with tough new sanctions if it refused to halt
its uranium enrichment program, which they suspect is meant for creating
atomic weapons.

�This was a day very much for the engagement track of the two-track
strategy,� a senior American official said, with the second track --
increased sanctions -- to be discussed only if this new round of
negotiations founders.

After a plenary session in the morning, the participants adjourned to a
lunch where informal discussions continued, followed by three hours of
informal bilateral meetings.  Those included a 45-minute session between
the chief American diplomat here, Under Secretary of State William J.
Burns, and Mr. Jalili, the highest level United States-Iranian talks in
three decades.

Mr. Burns raised a range of topics, including the nuclear dispute and
the plant near Qom and human-rights issues, American officials said,
while the Iranians raised their own concerns, including the need for a
world free of nuclear bombs and access to peaceful nuclear energy for all.

Mr. Jalili, in a news conference, called the discussions �good talks
that will be a framework for better talks,� and expressed satisfaction
that the world had engaged with Iran�s global agenda, which includes
nuclear disarmament.  He denied that there were any other Iranian
nuclear facilities hidden from the I.A.E.A.

Many diplomats and analysts believe that the plant near Qom is only one
of a series of hidden installations that Iran has constructed, in
addition to its publicly acknowledged ones, for what is considered to be
a military program. Iran insists that its program is purely peaceful and
that it has a right under the nonproliferation treaty to enrich uranium
for peaceful purposes.  But it has regularly lied to the United Nations
and the International Atomic Energy Agency about its facilities.

Despite the uncertainties, nuclear experts hailed the tentative
agreements.  �It�s significant,� David Albright, president of the
Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in
Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said.  �The principle is
important.�

Mr. Albright said the amount of low-enriched uranium to be shipped out
of Iran was also significant. Iran�s stockpile has worried some arms
controllers, who fear that Tehran may drop out of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and further enrich the material into fuel for a
bomb.

The new accord would end that prospect -- at least for the exported uranium.

Mr. Albright cautioned that the deal would become a real solution only
if Iran expanded the accord to cover all the uranium that it wanted
enriched.  �Iran�s made a concession,� he said.  �But it has little
meaning for the long term unless Iran continues to send out� its uranium
for enrichment.

--Steven Erlanger reported from Geneva, and Mark Landler from
Washington. Reporting was contributed by Helene Cooper from Washington,
Sharon Otterman and William J. Broad from New York, and Neil MacFarquhar
from the United Nations.

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=john+Bolton+Iran
including:

Russia Today news story on interview with Bolton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZMno_lOTEk

Partial text
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,536561,00.html





--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

In case you get behind... here's a sample last couple days:
http://www.antiwar.com/regions/regions.php?c=Iran

#  Iranian Leaders Urge Protections for Detained Protesters
7/28/2009
# Appeals Court Keeps Alive Suit Against Iran
7/28/2009
# Nonmilitary Actions Can Deter Iran, Gates Says; Barak Doubtful
7/28/2009
# 140 Prisoners From Iran Election Crackdown Freed
7/28/2009
# US General: Iran Working to Influence Iraq Vote
7/28/2009
# US Envoys in Israel to Discuss Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
7/28/2009
# Iraqi Forces Raid Camp of Iranian Exiles
7/28/2009
# Iran Turns Inward, Silent on US Outreach
7/28/2009
# Iran Supreme Leader Closes Prison Over Abuses
7/28/2009
# Iran Supreme Leader Closes Prison Over Abuses
7/28/2009
# Reports of Prison Abuse and Deaths Anger Iranians
7/28/2009
# Clinton to Israel: Iran Will Never Have Nukes
7/28/2009
# Ahmadinejad Faces Hardline Revolt in Iran
7/27/2009
# Iranian Opposition Leader Calls on Supporters to Take to the Streets
7/27/2009
# Firing and Resignation Indicate Tension Between President and Supreme
Leader
7/27/2009
# Israel on Iran: Anything It Takes to Stop Nukes
7/27/2009
# Court Finds Iran Minister Guilty of Fraud
7/27/2009
# Israeli Envoy Blames Iran for Stalled Peace Process
7/27/2009
# Gates Says US Overture to Iran Is 'Not Open-Ended'
7/27/2009
# Barak: No Option Is Off the Table on Iran
7/27/2009
# Israel's Barak: 'No Option' Off Table on Iran
7/27/2009
# Report: Iran's Ahmadinejad Dismisses Two Ministers
7/26/2009
# Ahmadinejad 'Sacks Four Iran Ministers'
7/26/2009
# Clinton Says Israel Should Be Patient on Iran
7/26/2009
# Another Iran Protester Dies in Jail: Report
7/26/2009
# Revolutionary Guard Tightens Hold in Iran Crisis
7/26/2009
# Iran's Rafsanjani Defies Clergy Criticism, Stands by Demands
7/26/2009
# Clinton Warns Iranians on Making Nuclear Fuel
7/26/2009
# Iran's Opposition Asks to Mourn Iconic Victim
7/26/2009
# Ahmadinejad Backs Off Cabinet Reshuffle in Face of Parliamentary Vote
7/26/2009
# Clinton's Iran 'Defense Umbrella' Has Murky History
7/25/2009
# Allies Censure Ahmadinejad Over Delay in Deputy's Ouster
7/25/2009
# Iran's Ahmadinejad Suffers Blow as VP Sacked
7/25/2009

--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5621XZ20090703

Israeli sub sails Suez, signaling reach to Iran

Fri Jul 3, 2009 1:27pm EDT
By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An Israeli submarine sailed the Suez Canal to
the Red Sea as part of a naval drill last month, defense sources said
on Friday, describing the unusual maneuver as a show of strategic
reach in the face of Iran.

Israel long kept its three Dolphin-class submarines, which are widely
assumed to carry nuclear missiles, away from Suez so as not to expose
them to the gaze of Egyptian harbormasters.

It was unclear when last month the vessel left the Mediterranean. One
source said the voyage was planned for months and so was not related
to unrest after the June 12 re-election of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, whom the Israelis see as promoting the pursuit of
nuclear weapons to threaten them.

Sailing to the Gulf without using Suez would oblige the diesel-fueled
Israeli submarines, normally based in the Mediterranean, to
circumnavigate Africa -- a weeks-long voyage. That would have limited
use in signaling Israel's readiness to retaliate should it ever come
under an Iranian nuclear attack.

Shorter-term, the submarines' conventional missiles could also be
deployed in any Israeli strikes on Iran's atomic sites, which Tehran
insists have only civilian energy purposes.

A defense source said the Israeli navy held an exercise off Eilat
last month and that a Dolphin took part, having traveled to the Red
Sea port though Suez. Israel has a naval base at Eilat, a 10-km (6-
mile) strip of coast between Egypt and Jordan, but officials say it
has no submarine dock there.

"This was definitely a departure from policy," said the source, who
declined to give further details on the drill or say whether the
Dolphin had undergone Egyptian inspections in the canal, through
which the submarine sailed unsubmerged.

A military spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the voyage, first
reported on Friday by the Jerusalem Post.

EGYPTIAN POSITION

Egyptian officials at Suez said they would neither confirm nor deny
reports regarding military movements. One official said that if there
was such a passage by Israelis in the canal, it would not be
problematic as Egypt and Israel are not at war.

Egypt is one of only two Arab states to have signed a peace treaty
with Israel, but relations remain cool. However, Arab states that are
allies of the United States appear to share some of Israel's concerns
about non-Arab Iran's nuclear program.

Israel is assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, but
does not discuss this under an "ambiguity" policy billed as deterring
its enemies while avoiding provocations.

Another Israeli defense source with extensive naval experience said
the drill "showed that we can far more easily access the Indian
Ocean, and the Gulf, than before."

But the source added: "If indeed our subs are capable of doing to
Iran what they are believed to be capable of doing, then surely this
is a capability that can be put into action from the Mediterranean?"

Each German-made Dolphin has 10 torpedo tubes, four of them widened
at Israel's request -- to accommodate, some independent analysts
believe, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. But there have been
questions about whether these would have the 1,500-km (1,000-mile)
range needed to hit Iran from the Mediterranean.

Israel plans to acquire two more Dolphins early next decade. Naval
analysts say this could allow it to set up a rotation whereby some of
the submarines patrol distant shores while others secure the Israeli
coast or dock to undergo maintenance.

=====

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.


------------------------------------

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted
for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107) *Yahoo! Groups Links







--
Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.

U.S. FREES FIVE IRANIANS HELD IN IRAQ
By Daniel Dombey (Washington) and Anthony Shadid (Baghdad)

Financial Times (London)
July 9, 2009 (1651 BST, updated 2340 BST [1540 PDT]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/abd654c6-6c9d-11de-a6e6-00144feabdc0.html

The U.S. on Thursday released five Iranian officials from its custody in
Iraq, as Washington moved ahead with its drive to improve relations with
the Islamic Republic even as protesters returned to the streets of Tehran.

Fresh clashes broke out when thousands of opposition supporters gathered
to protest against last month’s disputed election result.  Security forces
used tear gas to break up the rallies, which also marked the anniversary
of student protests 10 years ago.  Witnesses reported that several people
had been arrested.

It appeared to be the most significant unrest in Iran since security
forces stopped much bigger protests in the immediate aftermath of the
election amid opposition claims of fraud.

The crackdown in Iran has increased pressure on Barack Obama’s policy of
engagement with Iran, with calls on the president from Republicans to
avoid legitimizing the Iranian regime.

Just hours before the ­protests, the U.S. military handed the five
Iranians over to the Iraqi authorities.  They had been detained in Iraq
since 2007 on ­suspicion of aiding Shia insurgents.

Hoshyer Zebari, Iraq’s ­foreign minister, who met the Iranians after their
release, said he expected them to be turned over to the Iranian embassy
“after legal procedures.”

Tehran has repeatedly demanded the officials’ release, saying their
detention violated diplomatic protocols.

Although the U.S. has sometimes said that Iranian-related attacks have
since diminished, General Raymond Odierno, the commander of U.S. forces in
Iraq, told CNN last month that Iran continued to “interfere” in the
country by training insurgents and paying surrogates.

The U.S. State Department on Thursday said the decision to hand over the
five Iranians was solely because Baghdad had asked for all third-country
detainees to be put into its custody, in line with an agreement to scale
down the U.S. military’s role in Iraq.

At the Group of Eight meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, Denis ­MacDonough, a
senior adviser to Mr. Obama, denied the move was a diplomatic gesture.
But the summit highlighted the limited time the U.S. president has for
engagement in the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Amid pressure from Britain and France for a tough stance, G8 leaders said
they would “take stock” in September of the success of efforts to find a
diplomatic solution.

--Additional reporting by Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Reuters in Tehran.



U.S. TURNS OVER TO IRAQ IRANIANS SUSPECTED OF AIDING INSURGENTS
By Warren P. Strobel and Mike Tharp

McClatchy Newspapers
July 9, 2009 (1655 PDT -- Jul. 10, 0425 Tehran time)

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1135032.html

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military on Thursday reluctantly turned over to
Iraq five Iranians it had accused of fomenting violence in Iraq.  The
Iraqi government promptly invited them to meet Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki and then released them to Iranian custody.

U.S. spokesmen in Baghdad and Washington said the United States had no
choice but to free the five men under the terms of last year's Status of
Forces Agreement, which requires the United States eventually to transfer
the more than 10,000 Iraqi and third-country detainees it now holds.

The United States claims that the five, detained in January 2007 in the
northern city of Irbil, were in the Quds Force, the covert arms of Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and were arming and training anti-U.S.
insurgents.  It has not provided detailed evidence to back up that charge,
asserting it would compromise secret intelligence methods, and never
pressed formal charges.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the U.S. military turned over
the five Iranians after Iraq issued arrest warrants for all third-country
nationals in U.S. custody.  Those are said to number about 150, and
include Syrian, Jordanian and Libyan individuals who came to Iraq to fight
American forces.

Kelly acknowledged misgivings about the release, and its impact on U.S.
military personnel in Iraq.  "That is a big concern of ours, is the safety
of American forces.  And we ... have of course made our concerns known to
the Iraqi government," he said.

Kelly and U.S. officials said the release did not involve a quid pro quo
with Iran and was not a part of the Obama administration's attempts to
engage that country's leaders.

Rather than re-arrest the five, the Iraqi government granted them a
meeting with al-Maliki and then reportedly turned them over to Iran's
embassy in Baghdad.

The Iraqi prime minister's office referred questions to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, where officials couldn't be reached for comment.  Iraqi
security guards turned away a McClatchy Newspapers reporter and Iraqi
journalists at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad.

It could not be learned if the United States formally protested Iraq's
actions.

Thursday's developments were further evidence of the shifting relationship
between Iraq and the United States, which just over a week ago withdrew
its remaining combat troops from Iraqi cities. In carrying out the forces
agreement -- and in negotiating it last year -- al-Maliki has acted with
increasing assertiveness, and sometimes in ways not in line with U.S.
interests.

The release of the five Iranians also ends a 2 1/2-year saga that began
when they were seized by U.S. Special Forces in Irbil, in Iraq's Kurdish
region.

Iran said the five were diplomats and that the building where they were
detained was an Iranian consulate.  Iraq protested the detentions at the
time, telling U.S. officials the Iranians were in the country legally.  In
March 2007, in what may have been a related incident, Iran seized 15 Royal
Navy sailors it said were in Iran's territorial waters.  They were
released 12 days later.

U.S. officials said there was no documentation confirming the Irbil site
was a diplomatic facility, and said intelligence data -- including
material seized after the building was searched -- showed the five to be
members of the Quds force.

The U.S. officials, who requested anonymity to speak more frankly, made
clear they were unenthusiastic about freeing the Iranians.  One called it
"a situation where we're going to grit our teeth and do it."

(Tharp reports for the Merced (Calif.) Sun-Star.)


-

Carol Moore in DC
http://carolmoore.net/
http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
http://youtube.com/carolmoore
http://secession.net
http://stopthewarnow.net
http://whatwouldgandhido.net
http://radicalbuttons.com

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
the National Security Agency may have read this
email without judicial or legislative oversight
or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.