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.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  [ufpj-iran] FW: One Leaflet for tomorrow-press release to follow
Date:  Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:39:05 -0500
From:  Reza Shirazi <royalbanc@...>
To:
References:



*United Against Nuclear-Armed Israel*



On behalf of the American peace forces and the patriotic Iranians living
in the United States, we protest the conspiracy orchestrated by a
pro-Israel lobby group to distort the facts about Iran’s nuclear
intentions with the aim of dragging the United States, once again, into
another bloody war, this time with Iran.



On September 15, 2009, a pro-Zionist think tank, dubbed as a Bipartisan
Policy Center (BPC), announced its brain-child on U.S.-Iran relations in
a report authored by two former Senators, Charles Robb (D-VA) and Daniel
Coats (R-Indiana) and a retired General Wald, former air commander of
U.S. Central Command, heading the allied air campaign under George W.
Bush against Afghanistan during 2001 - 2002.  It is worth mentioning
that Coats now works as a lobbyist with King and Spaulding, a major
Washington lobby firm. It is preposterous that a group which functions
routinely as a lobbyist for the American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee, at the same time passes judgment that “Iran would be able to
produce a weapon’s worth of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in less than
two months,” and that President Obama should “begin preparations for the
use of military options” against that country.



In this case it is not hard to see that a group lobbying for a foreign
country is provided with the facilities to influence the U.S. foreign
policy.  This is not the first time that Israel tries to influence U.S.
foreign policy and entice Washington to undertake another senseless,
bloody and costly war that naturally puts the lives of tens of thousands
of American youth in harms way, while the beneficiary of the booties is
Tel Aviv’s war-mongers.  There is irrefutable  evidence that Israel and
its forward base, AIPAC, played a crucial role in lulling President
George Bush and the U.S. Congress to launch a murderous war on Iraq,
using the assistance of such propaganda tools as the Wall Street
Journal, the New York Times, CNN and others, too many to mention.



By now it has become common knowledge among the American intelligentsia
that the front organization of the Bipartisan Policy Center, namely, the
“United Against Nuclear Iran” (UANI) is one of the recipients of the
$400 million allocated by the U.S. Congress to undermine the Iranian
economy as well as its political system.  It is appalling to witness
that the U.S. Congress, penetrated by foreign agents in lobbyist garb,
allows American peoples’ tax money to be used by foreign conduits to
pull the U.S. into another war.  This group of warmongers who speak for
the defense industry and mercenary corporations hand-in-glove support
such terrorist organizations as the Iranian Mojahedin Khalgh
Organization (MKO) and the monarchists.



The birth and proliferation of such parasitic and war-loving
organizations as the Bipartisan Policy Center is only possible in the
U.S. where huge sums of money are allocated - $650 Billion annually - to
carry out aggressive policies and permanent wars against other nations.
This trend must be stopped.



Contact: American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC) www.iranaifc.com
<http://www.iranaifc.com/>

END FORWARD




--
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.

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 détente 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 élite 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 chargé 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 Enchaîné, 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 Enchaîné* quoted by Israel Radio,
Jerusalem has already ordered high-quality combat rations from a French
food manufacturer for soldiers serving in élite 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 élite 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 Enchaîné*'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 Enchaîné* 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 Enchaîné*, 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 Enchaîné* 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.

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.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     [women4peaceiniran] Iran's acknowledged nuclear fuel plant
and Israel's secret nuclear weapons plant
Date:     Tue, 6 Oct 2009 00:33:09 -0400

Iran's acknowledged nuclear fuel plant and Israel's secret nuclear
weapons plant
<http://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/iran%E2%80%99s-acknowledged-nuclear-fuel\
-plant-and-israel%E2%80%99s-secret-nuclear-weapons-plant/>


By Stephen Gowans

Western press accounts of the existence of an unfinished Iranian nuclear
fuel plant near Qum have subtly changed, drawing closer to a view more
compatible with Washington's aim of marshalling support for stepped up
sanctions against Iran.

While early press reports acknowledged that Iran had on Monday,
September 22 notified the International Atomic Energy Agency of the
plant's existence [1] (that is, days before the Obama administration
drew attention to it) stories in major dailies now omit any mention of
the Iranian notification. Instead, the reporting on the issue now
creates the impression that the existence of the facility was unknown
outside of Iran until US officials revealed it on Friday, September 26.
For example, New York Times reporters David E. Sanger and William J.
Broad write of "the revelation Friday of the secret facility at a
military base near the holy city of Qum." [2] The facility could hardly
be secret, since it existence had been revealed by Iran itself five days
earlier.

U.S. media have also omitted any mention of a secret nuclear weapons
plant in another West Asian country, Israel.

Israel's secret nuclear weapons plant, long in existence, is located in
the Negev desert near Dimona. [3] I.A.E.A inspectors have never visited
it and never will unless Israel becomes a signatory to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, a treaty Iran has voluntarily submitted to.
(While the United States is a nominal signatory, it acts as if it's not
bound by the treaty's provisions, and therefore is effectively no more a
member than Israel is.)

Continued at
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/iran%E2%80%99s-acknowledged-nuclear-fuel-\
plant-and-israel%E2%80%99s-secret-nuclear-weapons-plant/

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 naďve 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.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  [ufpj-iran] R, ABC, AP, H: Possibility of Israeli attack on
Iran continues to preoccupy leaders & strategists
Date:  Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:27:00 -0700
From:  Mark Jensen <jensenmk@...>
To:  UFPJ-IRAN listerv <ufpj-iran@...>



NEWS: Possibility of Israeli attack on Iran continues to preoccupy
leaders & strategists

[In August Israeli President Shimon Peres told Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev that Israel would not launch an attack on Iran's nuclear
program, Medvedev said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CNN, Reuters
reported.[1]  --  A few days ago, former National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski told Gerald Posner of The Daily Beast that U.S. jets
should shoot down Israeli planes in the event they attempt an attack on
Iran, ABC News reported.[2]  --  Meanwhile, in remarks broadcast on
state-run radio, Iran's supreme leader said that Western powers knew
that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, AP reported.  --  "The U.S.
officials who talk about Iranian missiles and their danger while saying
Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, they know these words are wrong,"
the Ayatollah Khamenei said.[3]  --  But *Haaretz* reported Sunday that
according to an Arab newspaper "The Israel Defense Forces and the U.S.
military will soon hold a training exercise in which they will simulate
missile attacks on Israel from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza."[4]  --Mark]

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/9011/

1.

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT: PERES TOLD ME ISRAEL WON'T ATTACK IRAN

Reuters
September 21, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115711.html

President Shimon Peres told his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev,
that Israel would not launch an attack on Iran, the Russian leader said
in an interview with CNN released on Sunday.

Medvedev's comments came amid speculation that Israel was considering a
military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, which Israel believes
the Islamic Republic is covertly using to develop atomic weapons.

The Russian president described such an attack as "the worst thing that
can be imagined."  He said Peres made the comment at a meeting in the
Russian resort of Sochi in August.

"When he visited me in Sochi, Israeli President Peres said something
important for us all:  'Israel does not plan to launch any strikes on
Iran, we are a peaceful country and we will not do this,'" Medvedev said
in the interview, which was recorded on Tuesday, according to a Kremlin
transcript.

An attack would lead to "a humanitarian disaster, a vast number of
refugees, Iran's wish to take revenge and not only upon Israel, to be
honest, but upon other countries as well," he said.  "But my Israeli
colleagues told me that they were not planning to act in this way and I
trust them."

Asked about the possible delivery of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft
missiles, Medvedev said Russia had the right to sell defensive weapons
to Iran.  He said sanctions are often ineffective and no action should
be taken against Iran, except as a last resort.

Medvedev also said that the chances of an agreement with the United
States on a new treaty to reduce strategic offensive weapons by the end
of the year remain "quite high."

On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran had no
use for nuclear weapons, adding that the Islamic Republic would "never"
abandon its disputed nuclear program to appease Western critics.

Israeli officials have said that a nuclear Iran would pose an
existential threat, citing Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel to be wiped
"off the map" and his Holocaust denial.  The Iranian leader's latest
denial of the Nazi genocide was on Friday, when he called it "a lie."

2.

[Blog]

Political Punch

ZBIG BRZEZINSKI: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SHOULD TELL ISRAEL U.S. WILL
ATTACK ISRAELI JETS IF THEY TRY TO ATTACK IRAN
By Jake Tapper

ABC News
September 20, 2009

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/zbig-brzezinski-obama-administra\
tion-should-tell-israel-us-will-attack-israeli-jets-if-they-try-to-a.html

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-obama-flubbed-his\
-missile-message/)
to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it
clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons
sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

"We are not exactly impotent little babies," Brzezinski said.  "They
have to fly over our airspace in Iraq.  Are we just going to sit there
and watch? . . . We have to be serious about denying them that right.
That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it.  If they fly over,
you go up and confront them.  They have the choice of turning back or
not.  No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse."

The USS Liberty was a U.S. Navy technical research ship that the Israeli
Air Force mistakenly attacked during the Six Day War in 1967.

Brzezinski endorsed then-Sen. Obama's presidential campaign in August
2007, which at the time was portrayed in the media as a boost to Obama's
foreign policy cred.  The *Washington Post* reported:  "Barack Obama,
combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to
handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of
foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski."

Brzezinski was never an official campaign adviser, but Republicans
jumped on the endorsement to push the meme that Obama wouldn't be a
friend to Israel, as Brzezinski's views of Israel attracted criticism
from some quarters in the American Jewish community.

“Brzezinski is not an adviser to the campaign,” former Ambassador Dennis
Ross, then a senior adviser on Middle East affairs to the Obama
campaign, said at the time.  “There is a lot of disinformation that is
being pushed, but he is not an adviser to the campaign.  Brzezinski came
out and supported Obama early because of the war in Iraq.  A year or so
ago they talked a couple of times.  That’s the extent of it, and Sen.
Obama has made it clear that on other Middle Eastern issues, Brzezinski
is not who he looks to.  They don’t have the same views.”

Brzezinski plays no role in the Obama administration; the White House
did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brzezinski's comments come within the same week that the White House
distanced itself from comments made by former President Carter, who said
he thinks "an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated
animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is
a black man."

-jpt

UPDATE: Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev told CNN that Israeli
President Shimon Peres assured him that Israel would not attack Iran.

"This is the worst thing that one can imagine," Medvedev said.  "What
would happen afterwards?  A humanitarian catastrophe, a huge number of
refugees.  And Iran would want revenge, and not only over Israel, but
over other countries as well.  The events in the region would become
completely unpredictable.  I think the scope of such a disaster would
not be comparable to anything.  Therefore, before taking the decision to
launch any attacks, you need to think the situation through.  It would
be the most irrational way to deal with the situation.  But my Israeli
colleagues told me they do not plan to do that.  And I trust them."

3.

IRAN'S LEADER SAYS U.S. NUKE ACCUSATIONS WRONG
By Nasser Karimi

Associated Press
September 20, 2009

Iran's supreme leader said Sunday that U.S. officials know they are
wrongly accusing Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

In Iran's first official reaction to the U.S. decision to scrap a
European missile intercept system to defend against threats from Iran,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed President Barack Obama's administration
is following the same policies as its predecessor.

"The U.S. officials who talk about Iranian missiles and their danger
while saying Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, they know these words
are wrong," Khamenei said in remarks broadcast on state-run radio.
"Despite its apparent friendly messages and words" the Obama
administration is pursuing the same policy of Iran-phobia, he said.

The U.S. administration has invited Iran to start a dialogue on its
nuclear program and gave a vague September deadline for Tehran to take
up the offer.  The U.S. and five other world powers accepted an offer
from Iran earlier this month to hold "comprehensive, all-encompassing,
and constructive" talks on a range of security issues, including global
nuclear disarmament.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet Iran's
nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Oct. 1 for talks on Iran's nuclear
program.  Iran has long maintained the program is purely for peaceful
purposes and Khamenei reiterated that Iran considers the production and
use of nuclear arms forbidden by the country's Muslim beliefs.

The Obama administration announced earlier this month it was scrapping a
Bush-era plan for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech
Republic.  Former President George W. Bush contended the system was
needed to shoot down any Iranian missile if Tehran ever developed one
with adequate range to threaten the United States or Europe.

U.S. officials have said the decision was based largely on a new U.S.
intelligence assessment that Iran's effort to build a nuclear-capable
long-range missile would take three years to five years longer than
originally thought.  The scrapped plan will be replaced by a new one
initially geared more to the threat of short- and medium-range missiles
from Iran.

Khamenei also addressed Iran's domestic political crisis, warning
government supporters against accusing opposition members of wrongdoing
without proof.  It was the latest indication that the Islamic government
may be easing up on critics of the June presidential election.

In a speech marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan,
Khamenei appeared to be working to iron out tensions that have created
the country's biggest domestic political crisis since the 1979 Islamic
Revolution -- the fallout from the disputed June 12 election in which
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election in a race critics say was
marred by widespread fraud.

Amid mass trials of supporters of reformist presidential candidate Mir
Hossein Mousavi, as well as claims of abuse, coerced confessions, and
intimidation by security forces targeting the opposition, Khamenei said
while a suspect's own confession was admissible, his testimony or
accusations could not be used to implicate others in the unrest.

"We do not have the right to accuse without any proof," Khamenei said,
urging the judiciary and security forces to pursue offenders within the
bounds of the law.  The speech was carried live on Iran's state radio
and television.

"What a suspect says in court against a third party has no legitimate
validity," he said.

Khamenei did not single out any individuals, but his remarks appeared to
refer to testimony by some detainees who maintain that former President
Hashemi Rafsanjani and other reformists supported Mousavi to weaken
Khamenei.

Rafsanjani -- who has been absent from several recent official
ceremonies, including a Friday prayer led by the supreme leader earlier
in September -- was seen sitting in the first row of worshippers during
the prayer ceremony at which Khamenei spoke.

Khamenei has been a staunch supporter of Ahmadinejad, support that has
further angered critics and opened up a wide rift between the country's
influential clerics -- reformists on one side, hard-liners on the other.

But in what could be an attempt to bridge that gap, he said accusing
others in the media without any proof would create a climate of suspicion.

The country has already been faced with just such a situation for months
since tens of thousands took to the streets in protests after the
elections, sparking a harsh government crackdown in which hundreds were
arrested or detained and dozens subsequently being brought to court in
mass trials.  Some opposition members say 72 died in the post-vote
police crackdown, roughly double the government's official casualty figures.

Khamenei's latest comments could signal a change in the direction of the
ongoing court cases against protesters.  Some detainees blamed
opposition figures and their supporters of fomenting the postelection
unrest.  Among those blamed were Rafsanjani and his son.

4.

REPORT: IDF, U.S. MILITARY TO SIMULATE IRAN MISSILE STRIKE ON ISRAEL

Haaretz
September 20, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115703.html

The Israel Defense Forces and the U.S. military will soon hold a
training exercise in which they will simulate missile attacks on Israel
from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza, the pan-Arab newspaper *Asharq
al-Awsat* reported Sunday.

The exercise will be carried out as part of the ongoing maneuvers
between Israel and the United States, the London-based paper said, which
will reportedly be the broadest-ever this year.

According to the paper, the drill is also part of U.S. President Barack
Obama's new missile defense plan, under which the Pentagon will
initially deploy ships with missile interceptors instead of stationing
missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.

The objective of the missile plan is to counter the threat of missile
attack from Iran, not Russia.

The report came shortly before Defense Minister Ehud Barak was to leave
for the United States, where he was to meet with his counterpart, Robert
Gates.

Only last month, the IDF held a joint naval exercise with the U.S. and
Turkish militaries in the international waters off Israel's coast,
according to Army Radio.  Six missile boats, three helicopters and two
jets participated in the drill, which simulated search and rescue
operations, Army Radio reported.



--
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.

catching up on some old news

Babylon & beyond

IRAN: AYATOLLAH CALLS GOVERNMENT A 'MILITARY REGIME,' CALLS FOR CLERICAL
REVOLT
By Borzou Daragahi

Los Angeles Times
September 14, 2009

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/09/iran-grand-ayatollah-calls\
-government-a-military-regime.html

BEIRUT -- An influential and high-ranking Iranian cleric has issued a
scathing denunciation of the Islamic Republic's current leadership,
calling on senior Shiite Muslim clergy in the Iranian holy cities of Qom
and Mashhad as well as the Iraqi shrine city of Najaf and beyond to
speak out against the regime.

Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri is one of the founders of the Islamic
Republic.  He was a confidant to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini before he
fell out of favor in the late 1980s.

In a statement issued today, he said that Iran had become a "military
regime" not the Islamic government envisioned at time of the 1979
revolution.

He said it was his fellow clergymen's "religious duty" to speak out
against the the government's abuses.

"We didn't want a mere change in title and slogans while the same
oppressions and violations of rights continue under the cover of Islamic
government," he said in the statement posted to his website.

Iran continues to reel from the aftermath of disputed June 12 election
and a subsequent violent crackdown against those who opposed the
presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Montazeri's statement was one of the harshest statements yet by a senior
cleric yet in the post-election war of words between the government and
its opponents.

Montazeri doesn't have direct political power, but he's highly regarded
among influential and revered Shiite clergy in Lebanon, Pakistan and the
Persian Gulf.

His uncompromising denunciation could make it difficult for Iran's
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to garner clerical support for
the ongoing crackdown and the battered government of Ahmadinejad.

Montazeri blamed authorities for triggering the crisis and then pinning
on others the mess they themselves created amid allegations of election
fraud.

He dismissed the ongoing trials of dissidents as "illegitimate and
illegal show trials [that] have given cause to the entire world to mock
Islamic justice."

"The recent post-election tragedies have set alarm bells ringing for the
clergy," he wrote.  "The regime has savagely suppressed million-strong
protesters who were legally objecting to the election outcome.  A large
number were arrested, and an unknown number were martyred in notorious
jails."

Montazeri called on the senior clergy to stand with the Iranian people
just as it has in the face of all "oppressive regimes."  He urged them
to speak out.

"The grand ayatollahs are well aware of their influence on the regime,
and they know quite well the regime needs their approval for its
legitimacy," he wrote.  "They also know the regime is exploiting their
silence .  .. Their silence may give the wrong impression to people that
the grand ayatollahs approve of whatever is underway."



--
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: Obama hypes news of Iranian nuclear facility
near Qom at G20
Date:  Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:49:32 -0700
From:  Mark Jensen <jensenmk@...>
To:  UFPJ-IRAN listerv <ufpj-iran@...>

...

1.

Iran

WEST CONDEMNS SECRET IRAN N-PLANT
By James Blitz (London), Daniel Dombey (Washington), and Najmey
Bozorgmehr (Tehran)

Financial Times (London)
September 25, 2009 (updated Sept. 26, 0017 BST -- 0347 Tehran time --
Sept. 25, 1617 PDT)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f79d9cc-a9b1-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

The U.S., Britain, and France united in condemnation of Iran on Friday
after Tehran’s admission that it has been constructing a secret uranium
enrichment facility that Washington fears could help produce a nuclear bomb.

As the world’s major powers prepare to meet Iran next week for critical
talks on its nuclear program, U.S. President Barack Obama disclosed the
existence of the plant, 160km south of Tehran.

Iran has been enriching uranium at the plant in Natanz under inspection
but it had never before admitted the existence of the second site to the
United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The disclosure will put new pressure on global powers -- and in
particular Russia and China -- to take a tougher stance on Iran’s
nuclear program, amid mounting fears that Tehran wants a nuclear
weapon.  There were signs of a hardening in Russia’s stance last night
when Dmitry Medvedev, president, said the existence of the site was
cause for “serious concern.”

The U.S. said it had known about the existence of the site for several
years, leading to speculation that Washington forced Tehran to come
clean about the plant in a letter on Monday to the IAEA.

U.S. officials suggested at a briefing that the concealed site was
designed to process weapons-grade uranium rather than low-enriched
uranium for nuclear fuel, as is produced at Natanz.  “If you want to use
the facility in order to produce a small amount of weapons-grade
uranium, enough for a bomb or two a year, it’s the right size,” said a
senior U.S. administration official.

Mr. Obama’s statement about the second site was one of the most dramatic
revelations in the long-running stand-off over Iran’s nuclear program.
Flanked by Gordon Brown, the U.K. prime minister, and Nicolas Sarkozy,
president of France, Mr. Obama interrupted the start of the G20 global
summit to issue a statement calling on Iran to “live up to its obligations”.

“My preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic
fashion,” Mr. Obama said later.  “It’s up to the Iranians to respond.”

Mr. Brown said:  “The level of deception by the Iranian government, and
the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments,
will shock and anger the entire international community.”

David Miliband, the U.K. foreign secretary, said “no sane person” would
want a military conflict with Iran over its nuclear ambitions and he
believed diplomacy could settle the dispute.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, said in New York that he was
“quite surprised” about the condemnation of the new facility.

“What the three countries did this morning demanded a strong response
but we responded with restraint,” he said.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said in reference to countries with nuclear weapons:
“Anyone who possesses a [nuclear] stockpile is politically retarded.”

The IAEA confirmed that it had been told by Iran about a new plant and
it had requested access to it as soon as possible.

2.

Middle East

DISCLOSURE PUTS TEHRAN ON THE DEFENSIVE
By Harvey Morris

Financial Times (London)
September 25, 2009 (updated 2116 BST --1416 PDT)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3d094aa-a9ce-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

NEW YORK -- It was more in sorrow than in anger that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
confronted the world’s press at his Manhattan hotel on Friday to respond
to Western charges earlier in the day that Iran was building a secret
nuclear facility.

“What the three countries [U.S., U.K. and France] did this morning
demanded a strong response,” the Iranian president said, “but we
responded with restraint.”

Casting himself as the wronged party in the latest furore over Iran’s
nuclear ambitions, he said his country had abided by all the
international rules by alerting the International Atomic Energy Agency
months in advance that it was building a uranium enrichment plant for
its peaceful program.

Why then did Iran, he was asked, always get such a bad press?  He quoted
an Iranian proverb in response:  “If they’re asleep you can wake them
up, if they’re only pretending to be asleep, you can’t.”

The accusations put forward in Pittsburgh did not impress him, he said.
They came from the two or three countries that thought they still ran
the world, although he checked himself and said you could not really
count the U.K. and France any longer.

He said he was disappointed in Barack Obama and his claim that the new
facility could not be for peaceful purposes, although he had not had
time to see the U.S. president’s words for himself.  “I don’t think Mr.
Obama is a nuclear expert.  We have to leave it to the IAEA,” he said.

He said he felt no need to respond to the condemnation he received in
the U.N. General Assembly this week from Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s
prime minister.  “We basically don’t recognize them,” he said.

“We think that regime is far smaller.  They can’t basically say anything
against Iran.  They’re far too small for that.  Iran has seven and a
half thousand years of civilization . . . we’re not concerned about
these things.  We are able to defend ourselves.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad has faces protests in New York this week against his
presence by pro-Israel and anti-nuclear protestors.  A rabbi was among
those arrested.

He affirmed on Friday Iran had no plans to make a bomb.  Any country
that had a nuclear stockpile was “politically retarded.”  The whole
concept of weapons of mass destruction was so 20th century.

He said he looked forward to Iran’s talks in Geneva next week with the 5
permanent powers of the U.N. and Germany.  It was an opportunity, he
said, to change the world for the better.

The Iranian leaders said the safeguards agreement his country and others
had with the IAEA had sub-divisions, with a time-scale for when the
building of facilities, the installation of equipment and the start of
uranium enrichment had to be reported.

“According to the rules, 6 months before enrichment begins, the country
must inform the IAEA, he said. Iran, however, had informed the agency 18
months in advance.  “I think that is a really positive measure,” he said.

He said Iran had had a “bitter experience” in past talks with European
officials about the nuclear issue.  But Iranians “defend talks and are
in favor of talks.”  “We offered a very transparent package,” he said in
reference to Iran’s proposals for the Geneva meeting. Iran looked
forward to “resolving world issues.”

Referring to his statements on Israel that have been interpreted as
anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, he acknowledged that “some people
may be sad about what I say.”  “But they can change their own behavior
-- stop invading Gaza, stopped occupying other people’s countries.”
Iran, he said, was a victim of double standards.

3.

World

GROWING FEAR OVER CAPACITY TO MAKE BOMBS
By Daniel Dombey (Washington) and Ben Hall (Paris)

Financial Times (London)
September 25, 2009 (updated 2300 BST -- 1600 PDT)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1eac53e2-a9fc-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

Iran’s secret enrichment plant is concealed in an underground tunnel
complex on a Revolutionary Guard base, according to the U.S.,
reinforcing fears that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are linked to the
country’s military and aimed at creating a bomb.

“The clandestine facility scenario is a nightmare scenario,” said Cliff
Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a U.S.-based consultancy.  “If
indeed this turns out to be a Revolutionary Guard-connected facility
intended for production of highly enriched uranium or to test advanced
centrifuges, that would demonstrate very worrisome goals [by] the
Iranian leadership.”

French officials say the site is deep in a mountainside, 30km from the
Holy City of Qom plant.  They add that work started in 2005, but do not
know whether any of the centrifuges for enrichment have yet been
installed.  The U.S. believes the site could not have started operating
until next year at the earliest.

“Our information is that the Iranians began this facility with the
intent that it be secret, and therefore giving them an option of
producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community
knowing about it,” said a senior administration official at a briefing
yesterday.

U.S. and French officials say the site is intended to hold about 3,000
centrifuges to enrich uranium -- too small for regular fuel for nuclear
power plants but enough, as a U.S. official put it, “for a bomb or two.”

Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency on September 21 the
site was a pilot fuel enrichment plant, intended to enrich uranium only
up to 5 per cent -- far less than the level needed for fissile material
-- and would provide more information at an “appropriate time.”

Washington says that despite its location on the Revolutionary Guard
base the facility is managed by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
-- although its existence was only known until this week to the most
senior Iranian officials.

But then “the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was
compromised,” according to the administration official.  “So they came
to believe that the value . . . as a secret facility was no longer
valid.”

The U.S. says it only “developed” information this year that the
facility was for uranium enrichment.  “It would be a terrible mistake if
we prematurely disclosed the facility, because at a very early stage of
construction, a facility like this could have multiple uses,” said the
official.  “We thought it was very important to wait until the facility
had reached the stage of construction where it was undeniably intended
as a centrifuge facility.”

The news has spurred Western leaders to call for tougher action while
highlighting the difficulty of military action:  other hidden sites
could help Iran keep nuclear components safe from attack.  In
particular, Iran does not disclose information about its manufacture and
storage of centrifuges -- essential components for perhaps another
secret nuclear facility.

“We don’t know whether this is the breakout site [to develop
weapons-grade uranium],” said David Albright of the Institute for
Science and International Security in Washington D.C., referring to the
clandestine enrichment site.  “But there’s been an expectation that Iran
would do something like this -- that it would have a back-up.”

4.

World

MOSCOW HARDENS STANCE TOWARD TEHRAN
By James Blitz (London) and Geoff Dyer (Beijing)

Financial Times (London)
September 25, 2009

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08aa47ca-a9fc-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

President Dmitry Medvedev hardened Russia’s stance on Iran’s nuclear
program on Friday after the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that
Tehran possesses a hitherto secret uranium enrichment facility.

As the world powers that negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program
prepared to confront the Teh­ran regime at a meeting on Thursday,
Moscow’s apparent change of approach will be analyzed closely by Western
diplomats.

The key issue for the U.S. and its allies will be the reaction from
Russia and China to the news, amid hopes that the international
community will present a united front at next week’s meeting in Geneva.
Moscow and Beijing have tried to block the West from imposing sanctions
on Tehran.

It emerged on Friday that U.S. President Barack Obama briefed Mr.
Medvedev on Thursday at the U.N. General Assembly in New York about the
uranium enrichment site.  Mr. Medvedev said immediately after:  “I don’t
consider sanctions the best way to achieve results on Iran . . . but all
the same, if all possibilities to influence the situation are exhausted,
then we can use international sanctions.”

A statement from Mr. Medvedev on Friday said the revelations on the
second site “seriously concern” the Kremlin.  He urged Iran to make
clear in the next few days that its nuclear program is peaceful.

China responded more neutrally.  “We hope that Iran will co-operate with
the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog] on this
matter,” said a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry at the G20 summit
in Pittsburgh.  He Yafei, a vice-foreign minister, said:  “The standoff
with Iran over its nuclear program can only be resolved through dialogue.”

Western diplomats have long believed that if Russia throws its weight
behind sanctions China will follow, wishing to avoid isolation in the
U.N. Security Council.

The revelation of the second site comes at a key moment in international
talks on Iran’s program.  Mr. Obama has made clear for months that he
will give Iran until the end of the year to enter talks over its
program, which many Western states believe is designed to create a bomb.

If Iran fails to negotiate, the U.S., Britain, and France will seek to
have harsh new economic sanctions agreed at the U.N.

Iran’s response to international demands that it suspend its uranium
enrichment activities has been stubborn.  Tehran sent a five-page letter
to world powers two weeks ago, making little mention of the nuclear
issue.  Many Western diplomats remain pessimistic of the chance of
concessions from Iran at Thursday’s meeting, which will involve
diplomats from the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, France, and Germany.

However, a shift in the position of Russia and China in favour of tough
sanctions would apply huge pressure on the Iranians.  Tehran has used
divisions between the six leading powers to ignore international
warnings on its nuclear program.

“A more united stance by the six powers meeting Iran next week will make
it far harder for Iran to wriggle out of making concessions,” said a
European diplomat.  Some European diplomats warned last night that
Russia’s position needed to be tested.  They believe that while Mr.
Medvedev has proved more accommodating to the U.S. on the Iran issue, it
is unclear if Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, sees things the
same way.

Mr. Medvedev’s remarks followed Mr. Obama’s decision last week to ditch
Bush-era plans to site missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech
Republic, which Moscow had opposed.  Mr. Obama said last week if Russia
increased co-operation with the U.S. on Iran as a “byproduct” of his
decision, it would be a “bonus.”  China has reason to resist sanctions.
Iran has become one of its biggest oil suppliers, accounting for 12 per
cent of imports last year.

Some diplomats believe Beijing might eventually be persuaded to adopt a
different position on Iran because China will want to maintain good
relations with both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which is also one of its
main oil suppliers.

China will also be wary of the impact on its energy security of an arms
race and increased instability in the Middle East that could result from
Iran’s nuclear program.

5.

FT video

FT world news

Financial Times (London)
September 25, 2009

http://www.ft.com/cms/885d7916-e3aa-11dc-8799-0000779fd2ac.html

Iran has told the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog that it has a second uranium
enrichment plant under construction.  James Blitz, diplomatic editor,
tells Daniel Garrahan why the timing of this development is so significant.

6.

Iran

REVELATION RAISES HEAT ON DIVIDED REGIME
By Roula Khalaf

Financial Times (London)
September 25, 2009 (updated 2305 BST -- 1605 PDT)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49048072-a9fe-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

For a regime that trumpets every nuclear achievement, big and small, the
delayed announcement of Iran’s new nuclear site on its state television
on Friday was conspicuous.

There was no mention of the plant on the 2pm newscast and it was not
until long after the U.S., Britain, and France issued a stern warning to
Tehran that the regime reacted.

In the evening, state television declared the second site was something
for Iranians to be “proud of.”  Ali-Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s atomic
energy organization, said the Islamic Republic had taken a “new
successful step” and set up another “semi-industrial plant to enrich
nuclear fuel.”

This particular Iranian “achievement,” however, had provoked an
international uproar, raising nuclear tensions at a time when a divided
regime is still wrestling with the aftermath of the disputed June
presidential election that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a second
term.  It was the first revelation of a nuclear facility since
dissidents exposed the existence of the Natanz plant in 2002, the event
that forced Iran to admit it had been hiding an elaborate nuclear program.

Iran had, it emerged on Friday, disclosed the existence of the new plant
on Monday to the U.N. nuclear watchdog.  But U.S. officials say the
letter sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency might have been
prompted by Iranian fears the site’s existence was about to be revealed.

At his news conference at a New York hotel, Mr. Ahmadinejad cast himself
as the wronged party, saying his country had abided by all the
international rules by alerting the IAEA months in advance that it was
building a uranium enrichment plant for its peaceful program.

Why then did Iran, he was asked, always get such a bad press?  He quoted
an Iranian proverb in response:  “If they’re asleep you can wake them
up; if they’re only pretending to be asleep you can’t.”

The Islamic regime has insisted since 2007 it would abide by old rules
of the IAEA, which stipulate new facilities should be declared only six
months before the introduction of nuclear material into installations,
even if other countries were abiding by new, more stringent requirements.

Western governments have not accepted the argument and the alarmed
reaction puts Tehran on the defensive.  “This will add to pressure on
Iran and [international] sanctions could come sooner rather than later,”
said Mark Fitzpatrick, non-proliferation expert at London’s
International Institute for Strategic Studies think-tank.

But he added that while the international response could make the regime
more forthcoming with the IAEA, it would not cause Iran to stop its
nuclear program.  The new enrichment plant demonstrates Iran’s dogged
determination to master the nuclear fuel cycle.  Now its existence is
known, Tehran will say it shows even more strongly that its nuclear
progress cannot be reversed.

“They’ll say we’ve established facts on the ground and you have to
recognize them,” said Baqer Moin, an Iranian author and analyst.

Even its most bitter rivals admit Tehran has played its nuclear cards
cleverly, defiantly pushing ahead with its nuclear activities but
providing some, not full, co-operation with the IAEA.  That has kept
Moscow and Beijing on its side, thus avoiding the international unity
that could lead to hard-hitting sanctions.

In the short term, the revelation of a new site complicates Iran’s
negotiating strategy as it prepares for the first meeting in a year with
the six-nation group that has been seeking to curb its nuclear program
-- the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany.

Tehran was entering the October 1 talks from a position of strength.
But assuming that meeting still goes ahead next week, Saeed ­Jalili,
Iran’s leading nuclear negotiator, will not be able to avoid a
discussion on enrichment.  Whether the new facility was designed for
higher levels of enrichment needed for nuclear weapons will have to be
determined by U.N. inspectors.  But Barack Obama, U.S. president, said
the size and configuration of the plant were inconsistent with a
peaceful program.  “Iran on one hand is giving more information but on
the other hand there is more suspicion about what else it is
concealing,” said a Western diplomat in Tehran.

Hopes of building trust had already been damaged by the June election
crisis.  The alleged rigging of the vote in favour of Mr. Ahmadinejad,
and a crackdown on the opposition, have forced Western governments to
tone down their enthusiasm for engagement with Tehran beyond the nuclear
program.

--Additional reporting by Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran and Harvey Morris
in New York.

7.

FT video

G20

Financial Times (London)
September 25, 2009

http://www.ft.com/cms/130b886e-a9ca-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs correspondent, reports from the
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh on the reaction to news of the existence of a
secret nuclear plant in Iran.



--
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.

Dear All,

I have recently completed a bibliography of sources about economic sanctions. 
It is too long (13 pages) to post here, but I will be glad to send it to anyone
if you will contact me offlist.

Best,
Hajja Romi, MLIS

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.