The seizure of Iran by the USA would mean them taking control of both the East bank of the Persian Gulf and the Southern Caspian, including their reserves of oil and gas estimated to be the second largest in the world.

Already the US have military control of part of the Caspian basin and of a corridor enabling them to link this area with the Indian Ocean (Afghanistan and Pakistan). They have also taken control of the key areas of the Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Iraq). At the end of this operation, Washington should have complete control over the world’s main hydrocarbon production and reserves. It will control the world economy without the need to share power.

At the present stage in the conflict, the big powers are divided with regard to US strategy goals. The UK, France and Germany are convinced that Iran has a nuclear arms programme. They base this on briefing by the US intelligence services who have shown them secret documents asserting that Tehran is working on a Green Salt Project aimed at developing a missile system with nuclear warheads. On the other hand, Russia, China and India consider Iran’s programme to be purely civilian in nature. They base themselves on the Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeiny, decreeing that the production, possession and use of nuclear weapons is contrary to Islamic teaching.

Objectively, the NPT’s distinction between between legitimate civilian and prohibited military programmes is no longer pertinent given the techniques now available. Civilian know-how and facilities can easily be adapted to military use. A rigorous reading of NPT would lead to the prohibition of nuclear programmes for all states, whereas a more lax interpretation would open the door to generalized proliferation. Without dealing with this question it is impossible to resolve the Iranian case, and it is precisely this grey area which the US is exploiting in order to lead the way to war.

There is, however, perhaps one means of clarifying the situation . A special method of enriching uranium, not yet completely developed, would, once again, allow a clear distinction between civilian and military usage. Russia is endeavouring to perfect this method and proposes that it be used not only for Iran’s benefit but for that of the international community as a whole. This is expected to be one of the three major proposals which President Putin will put forward at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, this summer.

The feasibility of this project remains to be demonstrated. Russia would produce nuclear fuel on its own territory in factories constructed in partnership with the state in question under the control of the International Atomic Energy Authority(IAEA). Detailed procedures still have to be worked out to guarantee the interests of all the protagonists. If this project were to be fully realized international relations as a whole would be turned completely upside down. Russia, as the guarantor of energy provision throughout the world would eclipse the authority of the USA which today satisfies their own energy needs at the expense of the rest of the world.

Iran has made of its nuclear programme a symbol of its independance with regard to Anglo-Saxon colonialism from which it has suffered so much. Contrary to an idea put about for some time now in the atlanticist press, this ambition is not the reserve of a particular faction within Iran but is shared throughout Iranian society. In addition, if the Islamic Republic has abandoned its dream of expansion dating from the Khomeiny revolution, nowadays, it intends to play a leading role in the rejuvenated non-aligned movement.. It also intends to share its demands regarding nuclear power with other countries and reaffirm the right to a peaceful nuclear programme, not just for itself, but for everyone.

Far from being concerned exclusively with Iran, the present diplomatic game will impact on the international balance of power and the intention of the USA, reaffirmed yesterday in the State of the Union Address, to take on unilateral global leadership.

Throughout 2004 and 2005 the various powers have been making increasingly complicated moves. A European Troika was meant to play the role of honest broker between the USA and Iran; they demanded a halt in Iran’s nuclear programme and then leant decisively towards the American camp. Iran, after accepting a two and a half year moratorium on its nuclear research, resumed them on the 10th January 2006, considering that they had waited long enough as a sign of good will without any serious response form the Europeans. The Russian position had become completely opaque, the foreign minister giving to understand that he shared the point of view of the Europeans until being put in his place by Putin who reaffirmed his commitment to a peaceful solution. Finally, a series of diplomatic missions have enabled Russia, China and Iran to develop a common strategy.

The whole question was given a kick-start when Britain organsied, on 30th January, a « private ministerial dinner » bringing together the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the USA and China.. In the course of this meeting, Jack straw, British foreign minister proposed that the IAEA refer the question to the Security Council, the first step on the way to war. His Russian and Chinese opposite numbers emphasized that such a decision would have no basis in international law. Confident in the viability of their uranium enrichment project, the Russian Federation wished simply to play for time, the time necessary to put together an agreement with Iran i.e. one or two months according to the experts. The dinner was concluded by setting out a timetable which each side presented as a victory: the IAEA Council of Governors will not be able to refer Iran to the UN Security council next week because it lacks the power to do so, but will demand of the UNSC that it be given the powers to do so at a future date.

This compromise allows the Americans and Europeans to maintain the pressure and the Russians and Chinese to gain time. Working out who came out best depends on whether you consider the glass half-full or half-empty.

In practice, assuming that the Security Council gives the Council of Governors the requisite powers, the latter can only put them into effect at their next meeting on 9th March.

The Iranians make play of resenting this horse trading as a betrayal by their friends the Russians. But, it is quite possible that they have obtained a written guarantee from the Russians that they will veto any vote by the Security council authorizing war.

Whatever the case may be, the Iranians are appealing to their partners in the non-aligned movement for help. President Ahmadinejad received a phone call of support from Thabo Mbeki( South Africa, who had produced nuclear during the apartheid era, along with Israel, later renounced them). Indonesia has repeatedly called for peace, whilst Venezuela and Malaysia are soon to receive the Iranian president.

At the same time, Iran is preparing « a world without Israel and the USA ». Tehran is optimistic about putting in place an oil spot market which doesn’t accept dollars. This is already working at an experimental stage. If no nation has officially announced its participation, many are encouraging participation through private companies acting as intermediaries. Now, the dollar is an overvalued currency whose value is maintained essentially by its role as a petro-currency. Such a spot market, once really up and running, would provoke a collapse of the dollar, comparable to hat of 1939, even if its transactions only amounted to a tenth of the world turnover. US power would be undermined by the falling dollar and, in time, Israel would also find itself bankrupt

Washington is then obliged to apply all its force to ensure that the major world powers break with Tehran. Short of war, the US must at least succeed in imposing economic isolation on Iran. Paradoxically, neither option seems possible. The US and Tsahal can hardly bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, since these are maintained by Russian advisers and technicians. Attacking Iran would imply declaring war against Russia. Furthermore, even if strikes were possible, Iran would not neglect to strike back at Israel with the devastating Thor-1 missiles sold to them by the Russians. The Shiites would make life even harder for the occupation forces in Iraq. If the US choose to use an economic blockade of Iran, this could easily be bypassed through Iran’s special relationship with China. Meanwhile, Iran would deny the West part of its oil supply, bringing about a rise in prices of 300% per barrel and a huge economic crisis.

Quite clearly, the outcome of this confrontation depends on the ability of each protagonist to impose his own timetable on events. Meanwhile, the Bush administration stubbornly drives towards a confrontation which it lacks the means to carry through successfully and in which it risks loosing its authority.

The poll said eight out of 10 respondents predicted Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to attack the United States or Israel. Six out of 10 respondents said Iran itself would deploy nuclear weapons against the United States.

On Prophet Mohammed cartoons, six out of 10 said the European newspapers that published them acted irresponsibly. But, by a 3-to-1 margin, they blamed the resulting furor on Muslims' intolerance of different points of views, the newspaper said.

The poll said 55 percent showed lack of confidence in the administration's ability to handle the situation in Iran.

President Bush's approval rating dipped to 39 percent, showing the State of the Union address and other subsequent speeches did not help lift the president's ratings.

The majority of the respondents (55 percent) also said the war in Iraq was a mistake. Only 31 percent, the lowest so far, believed the United States and its allies are winning in Iraq.

I had the privilege of being present at the creation of the international Truth-Telling Coalition on Sept. 9, 2004 and of working with Daniel Ellsberg in drafting the coalition’s Appeal to Current Government Officials [ http://tompaine.com/Archive/others/appeal_for_truth_telling.php to put loyalty to the Constitution above career and to expose dishonesty leading to misadventures like the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Whether or not encouragement from the Coalition played any role in subsequent disclosures, we are grateful for those responsible for the recent hemorrhaging of important information—from the “Downing Street Minutes” showing that by summer 2002 the Bush administration had decided to “fix” intelligence to “justify” war on Iraq, to disclosures regarding CIA kidnappings, secret prisons, and state-sponsored torture.

As former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who leads the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, keeps reminding us, “Information is the oxygen of democracy.” And with this administration’s fetish for secrecy and our somnolent Fourth Estate, we would likely all suffocate without patriotic truth-tellers (aka whistleblowers).

Whistle Blowing and Vietnam

There are several times as many potential whistleblowers as there are actual ones. I regret that I never got out of the former category during the early stages of the Vietnam War, when I had a chance to try to stop it. I used to lunch periodically with my colleague Sam Adams, with whom I trained as a CIA analyst and who was given the task of assessing Vietnamese Communist strength early in the war. Sam proved himself the consummate analyst. Relying largely on captured documents, he concluded that there were twice as many Communists (about 600,000) under arms in the South as the US military there would admit to.

Adams learned from Army analysts that Gen. William Westmoreland had placed an artificial cap on the official Army count rather than risk questions regarding the prospects for “staying the course” (sound familiar?). It was a clash of cultures, with Army intelligence analysts following politically dictated orders, and Sam Adams aghast. In a cable dated Aug. 20, 1967 Westmoreland’s deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, set forth the rationale for the deception. The new, higher numbers, he said “were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press.” Noting that, “We have been projecting an image of success over recent months,” Abrams cautioned that if the higher figures became public, “all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion.”

When Sam’s superiors decided to acquiesce in the Army’s figures, Sam was livid. He told me the whole story over lunch, and I remember a long silence as each of us ruminated on what might be done. I recall thinking to myself, someone should take the Abrams cable down to the New York Times (at the time an independent newspaper). The only reason for the cable’s “SECRET EYES ONLY” classification was to hide the deception.

I adduced a slew of reasons why I ought not to: a plum overseas assignment for which I was in the final stages of language training; a mortgage; the ethos of secrecy; and, not least, the analytic work (which was important, exciting work, and which Sam and I both thrived on). One can, I suppose, always find reasons for not sticking one’s neck out. For the neck, after all, is a convenient connection between head and torso. But if there is nothing for which you would risk your neck, it has become your idol, and necks are not worthy of that. I much regret giving such worship to my own neck.

As for Sam, he chose to go through grievance channels and got the royal run-around, even after the Communist countrywide offensive at Tet in Jan.-Feb. 1968 proved beyond any doubt that his count of Communist forces was correct. When the offensive began, as a way of keeping his sanity, Adams drafted a cable saying, “It is something of anomaly to be taking so much punishment from Communist soldiers whose existence is not officially acknowledged.” But he did not think the situation at all funny.

Dan Ellsberg Steps In

Sam kept playing by the rules, but it happened that—unbeknownst to Sam—Dan Ellsberg gave Sam’s figures on enemy strength to the (then independent) New York Times, which published them on March 19, 1968. Dan had learned that President Lyndon Johnson was about to bow to Pentagon pressure to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos, and up to the Chinese border—perhaps even beyond. Later, it became clear that his timely leak—together with another unauthorized disclosure to the Times that the Pentagon had requested 206,000 more troops—prevented a wider war. On March 25, Johnson complained to a small gathering, “The leaks to the New York Times hurt us...We have no support for the war...I would have given Westy the 206,000 men.”

Ironically, Sam himself played by the rules; that is, until he learned that Dan Ellsberg was on trial for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was being charged with endangering national security by revealing figures on enemy strength. Which figures? The same old faked numbers from 1967! “Imagine,” said Adams, “hanging a man for leaking faked numbers,” as he hustled off to testify on Dan’s behalf.

Ellsberg, who copied and gave the Pentagon Papers—the 7,000-page top secret history of US decision making on Vietnam—to the New York Times and Washington Post, has had difficulty shaking off the thought that, had he released them in 1964 or 1965, war might have been averted.

“Like so many others, I put personal loyalty to the president above all else—above loyalty to the Constitution and above obligation to the law, to truth, to Americans, and to humankind. I was wrong.

And so was I, it now seems, in not asking Sam for that cable from Gen. Abrams. Sam, too, eventually had strong regrets. When the war drew down, he was tormented by the thought that, had he not let himself be diddled by the system, the left half of the Vietnam Memorial wall would not be there, for there would be no names to chisel into such a wall. Sam Adams died prematurely at age 55 with nagging remorse that he had not done enough.

In a letter appearing in the (then independent) New York Times on Oct. 18, 1975, John T. Moore, a CIA analyst who worked in Saigon and the Pentagon from 1965 to 1970, confirmed Adam’s story after Sam told it in detail in the May 1975 issue of Harper’s magazine:

“My only regret is that I did not have Sam’s courage...The record is clear. It speaks of misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, of outright dishonesty and professional cowardice. It reflects an intelligence community captured by an aging bureaucracy, which too often placed institutional self-interest or personal advancement before the national interest. It is a page of shame in the history of American intelligence.”

Next Challenge: Iran

Anyone who has been near a TV in recent weeks has heard the drumbeat for war on Iran. The best guess for timing is next month.

Let’s see if we cannot do better this time than we did on Iraq. Patriotic truth tellers, we need you! In an interview last year with US News and World Report, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said that on Iraq, “The White House is completely disconnected from reality...It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along.”

Ditto for an adventure against Iran. But the juggernaut has begun to roll; the White House/FOX News/Washington Times spin machine is at full tilt. This is where whistleblowers come in. Some of you will have the equivalent of the Gen. Abrams cable, shedding light on what the Bush administration is up to beneath the spin. Those of you clued into Israeli plans and US intelligence support for them, might clue us in too. Don’t bother this time with the once-independent congressional oversight committees; you will have no protection, in any case, if you choose that route—CIA Director Porter Goss’ recent claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor should you bother with the once-independent New York Times. Find some other way; just be sure you get the truth out—information that will provide the oxygen for democracy.

Better Late Than Never?

Don’t wait until it’s too late—as Dan Ellsberg and Sam Adams did on Vietnam. Any number of people would have had a good chance of stopping the Iraq war, had they the courage to disclose publicly what they knew BEFORE it was launched.

One of them, Paul Pillar, was National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, and has just published an article in Foreign Affairs titled “Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq.” It is an insider’s account of his tenure and the “disturbing developments” he witnessed on the job. In substance it tells us little more than what we have long since pieced together ourselves, but it provides welcome confirmation.

Sadly, Pillar speaks of the politicization of intelligence as though it were a bothersome headache rather than the debilitating cancer it is. Interviewed on NPR, he conceded without any evident embarrassment that, with respect to Iraq, “intelligence was not playing into a decision to be made. It was part of the effort to build support for the operation.” So, in the vernacular of Watergate, Pillar’s article is a “modified limited hangout,” in which he pulls many punches. Nowhere in Pillar’s 4,450 words, for example, appears the name of former CIA director George Tenet, whom he now joins at Georgetown University.

It should qualify as another “disturbing development” that Pillar parrots the administration’s default explanation for what drove it’s decision to topple Saddam; “namely, the desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures in the Middle East and hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.” The word “oil” appears only once in Pillar’s article: “military bases” and “Israel” not at all. He splits hairs to be overly kind to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. “To be fair,” writes Pillar, “Secretary Powell’s presentation at the UN never explicitly asserted that there was a cooperative relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda.” Pillar seem to have forgotten how Powell used that speech to play up “the potentially more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder,” and spoke of a “Saddam-bin Laden understanding going back to the early and mid-1990s.”

Truly Disturbing

Generally absent is any sense of the enormity of what the Bush administration has done and the urgent imperative to prevent a repeat performance. With no perceptible demurral from inside the government, George W. Bush launched a war of aggression, defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal as “the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”—like torture, for example.

If this doesn’t qualify for whistle blowing, what does? Let us hope that administration officials, or analysts—or both—will find the courage to speak out loudly, and early enough to prevent the “disconnected-from-reality” cabal in the Bush administration from getting us into an unnecessary war with Iran.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. A veteran of 27 years in the analysis division of the CIA, he now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

This article appeared first on Truthout.com.

Iran has publicly pledged to resume its suspended nuclear programme before the United Nations' watchdog meets in Vienna next month to discuss possible UN Security Council action, which could include sanctions.

The diplomat said Iran had not yet fired up the whole 164-centrifuge cascade but had begun to load some centrifuges with the raw uranium hexafluoride (UF6), which can then be purified into enriched uranium.

He explained that once nuclear scientists had perfected the enrichment technique at the pilot plant, they would be capable of escalating to industrial-scale enrichment with thousands of centrifuges.

Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity and that it only wants to produce low enriched uranium, which is not refined enough for weapons use. The EU and US fear that the programme is a front for weapons development.

Those fears have been heightened by reports that the republic wants to install more than 50,000 centrifuges at Natanz, which could then produce enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb every fortnight.

Inspectors were due to visit the Natanz plant tomorrow for an inspection, following threats that surveillance seals and cameras would be removed.

Iran had suspended its suspect uranium enrichment for three years until talks with an EU-led negotiating team, aimed at winning guarantees that the program is peaceful, broke down last month.

It has, however, been making the feedstock UF6 at a conversion plant in Isfahan since the summer. The West had appeared ready to allow this work, although technically part of nuclear fuel activities, as long as there was no actual enrichment.

Gholam Hossein Elham, a spokesman for the government of President Ahmadinejad, was asked today whether Iran would wait for the IAEA board of governors’ meeting on March 6 to resume industrial-scale enrichment. He replied simply: "No, no."

The IAEA voted last week to report Iran to the Security Council, but left a one-month window for a final attempt to tempt Tehran back to the negotiating table. Proposed talks in Moscow with Russia, which has offered to carry out enrichment on Iran's behalf, today appeared to have been unilaterally cancelled.

Sergei Kislyak, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, said Moscow still expected the Iranian delegation on Thursday. Mr Elham said that Iran's government was now insisting that enrichment was carried out within its borders.

"But this does not mean a full scale as technically it is impossible at this phase to inject uranium into the 60,000 centrifuges in Natanz," Vaeidi said, referring to press reports that the full enrichment process had already started.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki confirmed that Tehran intended to produce nuclear fuel using its own uranium enrichment facilities.

Iran planned to build more nuclear reactors after the completion by Russia of its first plant at the southern Gulf port of Bushehr, Mottaki said during a visit to Armenian capital Yerevan.

"We hope to provide (the new power plants) with nuclear fuel ourselves," he told reporters. Iran was preparing to receive the first shipments of fuel rods from Russia "in the near future".

Mottaki said Russian nuclear power chief Sergei Kiriyenko was expected in Tehran this month to discuss the cooperation.

Vaeidi said negotiations in Moscow over enriching Iranian uranium on Russian territory would be held Feb 20, four days later than initially planned.

He reiterated that Iran would evaluate the Russian plan but insist on at least having parts of the enrichment process inside Iran.

"We have nothing to hide (in our nuclear projects) and continue our commitments within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but no longer in line within the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," Vaeidi said.

Following the referral of its nuclear case to the UN Security Council at the Feb 2 IAEA meeting, Iran had announced suspension of all voluntary activities in connection with the IAEA Additional Protocol, including snap inspections and removal of some of the IAEA monitoring cameras.

But Iran said it would stick to NPT commitments.

"We are even ready to continue talks with the European Union let alone Russia and China for finding a formula acceptable for all involved sides, we are not after adventurism but after an agreement," Vaeidi said.

Mohammad Saeidi, deputy of the Iranian Atomic Organisation, told the Khabar news network that recent press reports on full-scale enrichment in Natanz were not only incorrect but "following certain aims" against Iran.

Saeidi said the seals at the Iranian nuclear sites had been removed - "either by the IAEA or under IAEA supervision" - and that the IAEA monitoring cameras had not yet been removed.

Saeidi said as Iran no longer followed the IAEA Additional Protocol the monitoring cameras installed within the framework of the protocol would be removed but not those installed under the NPT.

"They are preparing the ground. A facility that has been suspended for two and half years cannot become functional in one night."

Centrifuges spin uranium hexafluoride at supersonic speed to make atomic fuel, or if highly enriched, bomb-grade material.

Other officials had said preliminary work to revive a pilot project had begun at Natanz this week, intensifying world concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Russia and France called on Iran to cease "all activities connected with enrichment and processing" of nuclear fuel. Their joint statement was issued by the Kremlin during a visit to Moscow by French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin.

Russia has offered to enrich uranium on Iran's behalf in a compromise designed to allay world fears that the Iranians might divert nuclear material into bombs.

Iranian nuclear negotiator Javad Vaeedi said talks on the proposal would now start in Moscow on February 20.

"We still want to reach a formula to prove that we will not divert uranium enriched on Iranian soil," he told reporters.

Russia confirmed that Iran had asked to postpone the talks, originally planned for Thursday, and voiced no objection.

DELAYING TACTICS?

Western countries suspect Iran wants nuclear weapons and this month persuaded the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report it to the Security Council. Iran says it wants atomic fuel only to make electricity.

Diplomats said Iran wanted to drag out talks with Russia, without giving up its right to enrich uranium at home, hoping that diplomatic activity will defer any Security Council action.

Iran has already undercut Moscow's proposal by announcing it was exercising its right to resume uranium enrichment at Natanz.

Officials close to the IAEA in Vienna said inspectors had arrived at Natanz on Tuesday to monitor any activity there.

Vaeedi said earlier in the day that Iran had begun preliminary work to revive small-scale uranium enrichment at Natanz, adding that industrial production was some way off.

"We need some time to reach that level with all centrifuges because of the 2-1/2 year suspension. However, the preliminary phases have been launched," he said.

A Vienna-based European diplomat said "a very few" of the cascade of 164 centrifuges Iran had running at Natanz before the 2003 suspension were now operating again.

"They will have to be tested first but the Iranians' goal is clearly to get all 164 operational again which would effectively revive the pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz," he said.

Iran is believed to have the parts to assemble another 1,000-1,500 centrifuges. This task, marking the first step toward commercial-scale enrichment, would take several months or more to accomplish, the diplomat said.

Germany and China called separately for more diplomacy on the nuclear row with Iran.

"The international community should not give up diplomatic efforts under the IAEA's framework," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said.

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said: "A military solution is not being discussed right now. I hope that if the international community stands together we can find a solution."

An Iranian official said Tehran was halting some IAEA monitoring carried out under the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it had been observing voluntarily. Iran has not ratified the protocol.

"Since the Additional Protocol is not in force any more, some of those cameras should be taken out," said Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization.

The European diplomat said non-compliance with the protocol would not affect the IAEA's remote cameras observing declared sites such as Natanz and a uranium processing plant in Isfahan.

The protocol applies mainly to areas such as research and parts assembly centres where the IAEA suspects Iran of failing to declare links to its atomic program as required by the NPT.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is to report to the agency's board on March 6 on Iran's nuclear program. His report will go to the Security Council ahead of an expected debate on how to curb Iran's atomic work, with sanctions a possible option.

He has promised to improve the lot of Iran's poor, but Iran's nuclear program and the president's controversial rhetoric — he has called the Holocaust a "fairy tale" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" — threaten to further isolate the nation of 70 million people and undermine the president's own political standing in Iran.

.

Q: You talk a lot about the things that divide our two countries. What about the things we have in common, for example in Iraq?

A: If countries act on the basis of a set of principles, there can be common ground in many areas.

.

Q: As in Iraq?

A: (He refuses to answer) If everyone is prepared to act on clear principles, there can be the possibility for common interests.

.

Q: You say you want Iran to progress but some of your comments have only further isolated the country. How can you progress if much of the world is opposed to Iran?

A: We are relying on the strength of our own people. The people of Iran have stood on their own feet throughout history and despite the bad intentions of their adversaries have been able to move forward.

.

Q: Don't you need Western investment to renovate your oil industry?

A: It is true but we are not going to compromise on our principles. There are many countries that are interested in working with us.

.

Q: Isn't it possible that you will face more economic sanctions?

A: It is true but these difficulties are the prelude to advancement. I believe those who want to impose limitations on us will lose more than us.

.

Q: Are you prepared for direct talks with the United States about the nuclear issue and other problems?

A: Iran is an Islamic country and as Muslims, the basis of our conduct is dialogue and rationality. Except for the occupiers of Jerusalem (Israel,) we are prepared to talk to all countries of the world. But the United States has its own conditions. It wants to talk to other countries from a position of overbearing strength and that cannot be a good basis for constructive dialogue.

.

Q: Is there some signal the United States can send that it wants talks on an equal basis?

A: They have to take a hard look at their own behavior and ask themselves if they were in the place of other nations, what would they do. They choose to threaten us and make false allegations and they want to impose their lifestyle on others and this is not acceptable.

.

Q: You have made many promises to the Iranian people but how will you keep them? Are handouts sufficient to help the economy?

A: I am among the very rare few politicians that I do not usually give promises. I have promised that I will work and we have a good and very coherent program for the advancement of our nation. Iran is a large country with very good human and financial resources. There is no program for just giving handouts.

.

Q: Foreign diplomats tell me that the brain drain is increasing and Iranian applications for visas for the West are up 20-50%?

A: The information I have is the contrary. There always has been travel back and forth.

.

Q: I hear that $200 billion in Iranian funds has fled to Dubai in recent months?

A: Those who have given that figure don't know the magnitude of $200 billion. We have relations with neighboring countries. There is investment back and forth. Dubai is a free trade area. It is natural that many Iranians go there to make investments. What is important is that the result of their work comes back to Iran. Last year, $8 billion was invested in the United Arab Emirates and $11 billion returned.

.

Q: Why do you say the things you do about Israel and the Holocaust when it only upsets people and further isolates Iran?

A: I don't know who is annoyed by revealing facts. But we know for sure that the people of Palestine are being killed every day with the Holocaust as a pretext and the people of the region have been deprived of peace and security. One day they (the Israelis) used to utter the slogan of the "Nile to the Euphrates." It means they have a larger plan to aggress other nations of the region.

.

Q: But Israel withdrew from Gaza last September?

A: They had no choice. They were forced to. Isn't the question of Palestine the most important issue in the region?

.

Q: A lot of Iranians would say no.

A: Apart from those Iranians you mention, the most important problem facing the region is Palestine. This regime (Israel) was founded on the basis of propaganda regarding the Holocaust.

.

Q: Why don't you go to Auschwitz and see the gas chambers for yourself?

A: My going there will not solve the problem. I cannot take a trip back 60 years but researchers can do that.

.

Q: Would you accept the testimony of Holocaust survivors in Iran?

A: We accept them but an impartial group should (also) go there and investigate.

.

Q: But it's established historical fact that all those people died, the same way it is established fact that the CIA overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953?

A: If we assume that is true, then the Westerners would have to pay the cost. Why should the people of Palestine pay the cost? If we provide the right answer to this question, the important problem of the region will be solved. We want to find a fundamental solution to the problem. We believe if we can go to the root of the problem, security and peace will come to the region.

.

Q: I have met several of your childhood friends and they say you were a nice and studious kid and played soccer in a special way. But none of them voted for you. Why?

A: I don't know the background and I can't make a judgment. People are free to vote. We are all friends even those who haven't voted for me.

.

Q: Are you surprised you were elected president given your background?

A: No. This is Iran. Surprises happen. In this country, people decide and I am part of the people. Any young person if he works hard enough can reach pinnacles.

.

Q: Are you familiar with our Abraham Lincoln, who also came form a humble background?

A: Yes.

.

Q: Is there any foreign leader you identify with?

A: I am familiar with the history but I don't make personal statements regarding this.

.

Q: Do you have any message to Americans beyond the slogans you chant at demonstrations that say "Death to America?"

A: We do not have any problem with the people of the United States. If there was not the obstacle of the U.S. government, we were prepared to send assistance to the victims of Katrina. My government has decided to facilitate travel to the United States for Iranian nationals. I want a direct flight. We want peace and calm for all peoples of the world and human dignity for all people. For us, humanity is important. Nationality is not important. We believe that all humanity has the right to live in peace and dignity. Our criticism is targeted to a limited number in the ruling establishment.

American journalists come to Iran and they don't face any problems and they can meet all Iranian officials. It's not the same in the United States. They do not allow our journalists to go there and they put a lot of limitations on their activities.

.

Q: Would you allow American diplomats to come here to process visas so Iranians don't have to go to Dubai or Turkey?

A: The question of bilateral relations is dependent on a change of behavior. This is not a question you should ask me; you should ask the U.S. government. You can solve this problem through the interests section of the host country. The problem between the U.S. and Iran will not be solved through such gestures.

.

Q: Would you speak with our ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has authority to meet with Iranians?

A: When I said there is a possibility of negotiations, there are certain conditions that need to be realized. If these conditions are met, the form (of negotiations) is not important. The way they have treated our people here has left no ground for talks. They think no one can live without them and this is a wrong notion. We have proved we can live without them. As long as they take that overbearing position of strength and threats, nothing will happen.

.

Q: Is there anything the U.S. can say or do to change your mind?

A: They think they can solve everything with a bomb. The time for such things is long over. Today we have the rule of rationality and thought. For example, a president has asked a question about the Holocaust. So many questions and publicity that the president is a warmonger. I think the Americans still don't know what's happening in the world. They think in a world manufactured by themselves. They have given support to those who published the cartoons and this is not the right thing to do. This kind of defamation is an insult and will not contribute to the resolution of problems. The wave of disgust toward U.S. policies is increasing. They only recognize their own friends, not others. We have in this world 6 billion people. It's not an American club. The majority are not Americans and are not interested to be Americans.

Why should there be impositions on them? If there are clear principles, the world will be a better place.

.

Q: What did you think of New York when you were at the United Nations?

A: Unfortunately, I was very busy and I didn't find a time to have private conversation with people. Our comings and goings were limited. If I had an opportunity, I would meet the people.

.

Q: But didn't you form some impression from looking out the window of your car?

A: It's not the buildings that make the city, it's human relations. You have to see how people live with each other and how much they like and sympathize with each other. What is important is the soul of the city. Unfortunately, I was not able to contact that soul. I saw many tall buildings and cars but they are made of steel and concrete. They do not reflect the sentiments of the people and that only comes from direct encounters. But generally speaking, people are the same everywhere and New Yorkers are no exception. They like peace and justice and tranquility.

© Copyright 2006 USA TODAY

The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee joined the propaganda chorus demonising Iran:

“Now the mad mullahs of Iran will soon have nuclear bombs, are we all doomed?... Do something, someone! But what and who?” (Toynbee, ‘No more fantasy diplomacy: cut a deal with the mullahs,’ The Guardian, February 7, 2006)

Gerard Baker provided the answer in the Times:

“The unimaginable but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran”. (Baker, ‘Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity,’ The Times, January 27, 2006)

Why might this be?

“If Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler.”

Readers will recall near-identical propaganda ahead of the assault on Iraq. Baker continued with some fearsome predictions:

“Iran, of course, secure now behind its nuclear wall, will surely step up its campaign of terror around the world. It will become even more of a magnet and haven for terrorists... Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from another Hiroshima. ”

This is the same Gerard Baker who wrote in the Financial Times in February 2003 that “victory [in Iraq] will quickly vindicate US and British claims about the scale of the threat Saddam poses”.

Baker was positively gleeful:

“I cannot wait to hear what the French, Russians and Germans have to say when the conquering troops begin to uncover the death factories Mr Hussein has been hiding from inspectors for 12 years... And do not be shocked if allied liberators discover all kinds of connections between Baghdad and terrorism around the world”. (Baker, ‘Defeating prejudice with persuasion,’ Financial Times, February 20, 2003)

A year later, Baker had airbrushed his own justification for war from history:

“Saddam Hussein asked for the benefit of the doubt. But that was not something a wise leader could possibly have given him. His actions had shown again and again the threat he represented. This threat lay not in vats of chemicals or nuclear centrifuges but in his ambitions.” (Baker, ‘Freedom from fear is a worthy goal,’ Financial Times, March 18, 2004)

In his February 2003 article, Baker had predicted: “it will become clear, even to the most rabid of anti-Americans just how much better off Iraqi people will be without their current president. The lifting of the yoke of Saddam Hussein will be an act of humanity far greater than the unseating of the Taliban.” (Baker, op. cit)

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman describes the current state of Iraq sans “yoke”:

“In fact, reconstruction has failed. Almost three years after the war began, oil production is well below prewar levels, Baghdad is getting only an average of 3.2 hours of electricity a day, and more than 60 percent of water and sanitation projects have been canceled. So now, having squandered billions in Iraqi oil revenue as well as American taxpayer dollars, we have told the Iraqis that from here on in it is their problem.” (Krugman, ’State of delusion,’ New York Times, February 3, 2006)

According to the Los Angeles Times, America's would-be Marshall Plan in Iraq “is drawing to a close this year“ with “much of its promise unmet and no plans to extend its funding”. (Cited, ibid)

Baker is a signatory to the Statement of Principles posted at the website of The Henry Jackson Society. Patrons include mild-mannered neoconservatives like former US assistant secretary of defence Richard Perle, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, and James Woolsey, former director of the CIA. Other signatories include former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, Colonel Tim Collins, Oliver Kamm, Andrew Roberts and Jamie Shea.

The Society declares that it: “Supports a ‘forward strategy’ to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so. This would involve the full spectrum of our ‘carrot’ capacities, be they diplomatic, economic, cultural or political, but also, when necessary, those ‘sticks’ of the military domain.” (http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org)

Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq know all about the “’sticks’ of the military domain”.

Four of the Society’s eight “Principles” refer to military intervention and military power - another notes that “only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate”.

Everyone else, we can presume, is fair game.
Ten Years From A Bomb

When officialdom targets a new ‘deadly threat’, journalists often embarrass themselves in their rush to be ‘on side‘. The January 20, 2005, BBC 1 Lunchtime News saw diplomatic correspondent James Robbins declare that US relations with Iran were "looking very murky because of the nuclear threat". (BBC1, 13:00 News, January 20, 2005)

Four days later, Robbins responded to Media Lens emailers:

“I accept that it would have been better to have said ‘alleged nuclear threat‘. I am sorry that my wording was not as precise as it could have been.” (Email to Media Lens, January 24, 2005)

Similarly, in a front-page article this week, the Guardian reported that Iran's foreign minister had threatened immediate retaliation over a move to refer its "nuclear weapons activities" to the United Nations security council. A correction was printed in the paper two days later:

“We should have said ‘nuclear activities‘, not ‘nuclear weapons activities‘.” (Corrections and clarifications, The Guardian, February 7, 2006)

Although Iran has removed the seals it put in place at its nuclear fuel research sites, experts say it is at least a decade away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. Consider the current media hysteria in light of the basic facts below.

Atomic weapons can be produced in two ways - either by using highly enriched uranium, or plutonium. Iran is known to have produced reconstituted uranium, "yellow cake", at its conversion facility at Isfahan. However, according to a September 2005 report by The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), this material is contaminated and not currently useable. If Iran were able to overcome the problem of purification, it would then need to enrich the uranium.

Whereas uranium used in nuclear reactors requires only a small amount of enrichment, weapons-grade uranium must be highly enriched. This can be done using gas centrifuges, of which Iran has 164 installed at its plant at Natanz. But this constitutes just 20 per cent of the number required to produce a bomb. Frank Barnaby, of UK think tank The Oxford Research Group, comments:

"They don't currently have enough centrifuges working - so far as we know - to produce significant amounts of highly-enriched uranium or even enriched uranium. They would need a lot more." (Sarah Buckley and Paul Rincon, ‘Iran “years from nuclear bomb“,' www.bbc.co.uk, January 12, 2006)

Given these and other problems, the IISS believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough high-grade uranium to make a single nuclear weapon. Dr Barnaby agrees:

"The CIA says 10 years to a bomb using highly enriched uranium and that is a reasonable and realistic figure in my opinion."

Alternatively, Iran could use plutonium to produce a bomb. But the IISS notes that Iran would need to build a reprocessing plant suited to the fuel used in its Bushehr nuclear reactor - an extremely challenging technical task. Iran is also constructing a heavy-water research reactor at Arak. But, again, this will not be ready until at least 2014, and probably later, according to the IISS.

The West’s hypocrisy and double standards could hardly be clearer but they are off the media agenda. The United States is estimated to be in possession of no less than 10,600 nuclear warheads. Its leading ally in the region, Israel, also has nuclear weapons, as do Russia, Pakistan, India and China. Britain has recently sold nuclear-capable bombers to India, while the United States has sold nuclear-capable bombers to Pakistan. Iran’s is indeed a “tough neighbourhood”.

The media never mention the military coup organised by Britain and the United States to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 to secure the country’s oil. No mention is made of the massive military support subsequently sent to the Shah dictatorship before it was overthrown in 1979. Britain and America were thus directly responsible for a country that had the "highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture" which was "beyond belief". It was a society in which "the entire population was subjected to a constant, all-pervasive terror", according to Amnesty International. (Martin Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International, cited in an Amnesty Publication, Matchbox, Autumn 1976)

All of this is waved away as inconsequential by journalists. Objections to military action are usually raised on grounds of possible negative consequences for the West. The likely cost in lives to the Iranian people is rarely even discussed.

Last month, the journalist Felicity Arbuthnott described the cataclysm generated by the US-UK 'liberation' of Iraq:

“For Iraq watchers, the daily carnage of liberation, the searing, wailing grief of the bereaved, bombed, bereft, haunt. Neighborhoods, evocative ancient homes reduced to rubble by the 'liberators', the surviving, bewildered, standing on shattered bricks, mortar, toys, belongings, liberated even from home's secure warmth.

“In the distorted horrors of today's Iraq, many never make it home: disappeared, kidnapped, shot by the occupying forces for driving, walking, and playing, in familiar venues. Iraqi lives are the earth's cheapest. 'Government' or occupying troops kill 'insurgents' (even if baby or toddler ‘insurgents’) and few questions are asked.” (Felicity Arbuthnott, ‘Death of Humanity,’ PalestineChronicle.com, January 18, 2006)

Despite even this, despite everything that has happened, Western journalists are once again falling obediently into line as the British and American governments begin the long, arduous process of demonising another oil-rich target.
SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to one or more of the journalists and editors below. It is more effective to write in your own words.

Write to the Guardian’s Timothy Garton Ash
Email: tga@timothygartonash.com

Write to the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee
Email: polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk

Write to the Times’ Gerard Baker
Email: gerard.baker@thetimes.co.uk

Please also send copies of all emails to Media Lens:
Email: editor@medialens.org

This is a free service but please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html