![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
You can check out the latest text of the diplomatic offer to Iran from the P5+1, at ISIS as usual. I'm not sure if this one has been released publicly, but ISIS must be pretty well connected to get all this shit before most others. The basic point of the letter is suspend enrichment, which as I've noted oreviously, is not what Iran wants to do. Basically what the letter states, is that once the International community has "confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature" of the enrichment program, then it will offer support to Iran. But confidence is hard to properly establish, especially when you have a US administration that has already made up its mind.
As ACW has noted, it will be interesting to see how long this coalition against Iran will hold together, especially in light of Bush's aggressive rhetoric regarding 'all options on the table'. Of course they're on the table, but he keeps delibrately reminding us of that for a specific reason. However, such aggressive rhetoric has the potential to scare off allies if they think he is actually going to follow through with it.
We should also note that fnding for RRW has agin been denied by the US congress. However, I will quote the reasons behind this decision,
"Last year, the Administration proposed the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) as the first of a new generation of nuclear warheads. The Administration promotes the advantages of a new design offering better surety, better reliability, and lower yield, but RRW was offered in a vacuum and there was no new strategy behind it. There was no plan for what the weapons were to be used for, how many there were to be, or how they were to be made. So, Congress refused to fund the RRW.
"This year, the Committee again reiterates that before considering funding for most new programs, substantial changes to the existing nuclear weapons complex, or funding for RRW, the following sequence must be completed: First, replacement of the Cold War era strategies with a 21st Century nuclear deterrent strategy sharply focused on today’s and tomorrow’s threats that is capable of serving the national security needs of future Administrations and future Congresses without the need for nuclear testing; second, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear stockpile sufficient to serve that strategy; and finally, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to support that future stockpile. Of course, we need to be looking at all three at once, but the decisions have to flow in that order. With no such plan delivered, the fiscal year 2009 bill again denies all funding for RRW. There is no sense in expending the taxpayer’s hard earned dollars absent a clear plan for the complex."
So they weren't rejecting it in principle, just rejecting it right now. They want a new nuclear strategy and mission for US weapons post-Cold War to rationalise and justify the program. They certainly havent rejected the idea. So look forward to it continuing to pop up in the future.
The letter details Iran's proposed negotiations package, but fails to include suspending its enrichment program, which is the key demand coming from the P5+1 before any deal can be made. The proposal features the usual ideas of cooperation in resolving the Palestine issue, fighting poverty, and more relevantly issues of energy security. The most interesting part of the proposed negotiating base is the section on 'the nuclear issue'. Iran apparently (it is an unofficial translation) proposes stronger measures to prevent proliferation, including "control[ling] the export of nuclear material and equipment " to other states, and obtaining further assurances about non-diversion of nuclear materials.
As Armscontrolwonk has noted, this is actually a small turnaround for Iran, which had previously decried the international controls of nuclear materials along the lines of a "suppliers' cartel bent on holding back the economic development of developing countries." This could also reflect Iran's growing awareness, and apprehensiveness, of the nuclear ambitions of its gulf state neighbours. In fact the whole Middle East, and world really, has seen a renewed interest in nuclear power.
Iran needs, and desires, to be treated as a regional power. While I dobt that this set of proposals for negotiations will satisfy the P5+1, at least it is looking towards more control of nuclear materials and technologies. This renewed interest in civil nuclear power and technologies has to be addressed, and international control is the preferable way to do this.
US Secretary of State Rice has recently said the US approach to Iran has been successful. She describes the approach as isolating Iran when it does not comply with the international community, and rewarding Iran when it does. I can't really identify the successes of this 'carrot and stick' approach in halting Iran's enrichment activites, which is their number one goal. This was a response to criticism from Obama on the refusal to enter high level negotiations with Iran, and McCain responded to Obama by equating talks with appeasement.
Since when was talking to someone appeasment? Nazi analogies are the most overused in politics, and often they dont actually make sense. Everyone talks, and it is the only real way to get a proper settlemt to a problem. By this logic Reagan was just appeasing the USSR in the 1980s, and I doubt McCain would want to accept that. The appeasement line is so obviously wrong, yet it still regularly gets wheeled out by critics. If we want a solution to the problems of Irans nuclear enrichment then talking and cooperation is exactly what is needed.
The assignments are finished, the sickness is fading, so its time to get back to some (semi)substantial blogging. The NPT PrepCom which i mentioned a while ago wrapped up last week, and NGO reaching critial will has a great selection of documents and reports from the meeting.
The documents are relatively bland, and most of them mention the same unfulfilled treaties and the additional protocol, all look to Iran/North Korea as major threats to the regime, and call for more disarmament by the NWS. But a few significant issues did come up.
I'll start off with the Australian delegation, and the first thing that strikes you is the similarity with last years conference papers. A significant difference this year was that 2 NGO representatives made up part of the official Australian delegation. Definitely something to be proud of, and one of them was from MAPW. The interesting thing about this year was that they raised the idea of a nuclear weapons convention. The chair's factual summary also highlighted this. This is pretty new stuff, the idea of the NWC is an NGO idea floated around for a while. ICAN has a pretty detailed draft convention here. Its interesting stuff, and worth looking at and working towards.
The final day of the conference saw the P5 finally come out with a joint statement, unlike in past years. Tensions between the states, and of course their virtual disregard for their NPT obligations, means the statement put the emphasis largely on non-nuclear weapons states compliance with the treaty. they also failed to mention the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty (CTBT) which is yet to be fully ratified by the US and China. The language is also differs significantly with other states, reflecting the P5s use of the treaty as an instrument of policy rather than something they themselves are actually bound by. Many states at the meeting expressed concern over the disarmament clause, and the seemingly opposite moves that some NWS are making in developing new nuclear weapon systems, and retaining nuclear weapons as a vital part of defence planning.
An interesting issue is that of nuclear weapons free zones (NWFZ) and in particular the middle east. The vast majority of states were quite ready to criticise Iran and North Korea, as they should, and make empty calls for the realisation of the 1995 resolution on a NWFZ in the Middle East. However, the elephant in the room was Israel. The only state in the middle east to have actually acquired nuclear weapons, and it was never actually named. The Iranian delegation let the cat out of the bag in this statement,
"[the] Israeli clandestine nuclear program [is], the main obstacle to NWFZ in the region"
...
"Regrettably the trend of support and assistance of certain western countries to [the] Israeli nuclear weapon program has reached such a horrendous and indeed ridiculous state that the Israeli regime, a non-party to the NPT, whose nuclear arsenal coupled with its expansionst, repressive and state-terror policies and behavious is repeatedly recognised as the single most serious threat to regional and international peace and security, finds the audacity to cry wolf about [the] peaceful nuclear program of the NPT state parties. The agressive nature of that regime and the unequivocal support of the United States to it has let this regime belive that the law of the jungle rules the world.
Unfortunately, in the current session we witnessed that the attack of a non-party to the NPT on Syria a state Party to the treaty not only was not condemned by some western countries but also they turned their criticism to a non-nuclear weapon state who by joining the NPT has legally foregone [the] nuclear option. The position of this group of countries would send a wrong message that it is ok for some to have nuclear weapons and stay outside of the NPT, while others who are state parties to the treaty should be targeted"
Wow! I hope that shook things up a little. Even if it is left to Iran to say it, a state that has violated the NPT itself, its still pretty awesome to hear.
I feel like this blog is coming across a bit like a spokesman for the Iranian foreign minister, and I really dont want to do that, but alot of the stuff written here should be said.
NTI reported yesterday (US) that director of the CIA Mike Hayden has questioned last years NIE and has personally concluded that Iran does in fact have a weaponisation program.
"...when asked whether he personally believed
"You know, this is not court of law stuff … in terms of beyond all reasonable doubt,” he said. “This is Mike Hayden looking at the body of evidence.”
But, as the report notes...
"He cited
Does that seem a little familiar? The report makes the point that suspicious behaviour as evidence was what led us to war with Iraq five years ago. But many other top US officials are making similar claims, and disputing the NIE, with little to no evidence. I dont claim that any NIE can be a flawless document, but the attacks do have the hint of political motivation. Dick Cheney has claimed Iran is intent on weapons grade enrichment, Bush has claimed that Iran is pushing for the bomb, and even the man who authored the report, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnel, has said he "...would change a few things."
Now, I havent seen what they've seen. But there does seem to be little real evidence pointing towards any Iranian weaponisation program. Two major documents on Iran's nuclear program, the latest IAEA report and the NIE, put forward litle confidence that Iran currently has a weapons program, and at worst one existed until 2003.
The weaponisation issue now is where any future Iranian bomb program is going to come from. Diversion of nuclear material under the guise of the civil program would be near impossible under the IAEA and the amount of attention Iran is recieving, so any program now must be an undeclared facility. This is where the focus should be
We also have to remember that Iran did break its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and still refuses to stop its enrichment program after calls (and sanctions) from the UN to do so.
However, this does not mean we should base policy on suspicions. Dubious suspicions have already led us to one bad conclusion, we cant let it lead us to another.
Kinda reminds me of this cartoon...
Yesterday the UN Security Council voted to tighten the sanctions on Iran over its refusal to halt its nuclear program. The resolution was sponsored by Britain, France and Germany, and all except Indonesia (who abstained) voted to support it. This comes almost a full year since the last batch of sanctions. The sanctions mainly include travel bans on a few key individuals and other bans on trade and assistance with a few organisations involved in the nuclear program, but none of it is very hard stuff, calling on states to "exercise vigilance" when dealing with Iran (but thats the way UN resolutions go).
This third round of sanctions comes in the wake of the latest IAEA report on the 22nd of Feb. Strangely though, this report was not all together negative about the situation in Iran and Iran's cooperation with the Agency. The IAEA is satisfied Iran isnt diverting materials, and the main concerns are with any form of past weaponisation programs, including in particular high explosives testing. The main issue in any look at a future Iranian weapons program is still undeclared material and facilities, but so far "the Agency has no concrete information" that they exist. The report concludes that Iran is cooperating in providing information in an ad hoc manner.
None of this is really that different to past IAEA reports, so why did the sanctions pass now? Past talk of sanctions by the US and others had always been shot down by other members of the Security Council. A theory thats been floated around about the renewed international pressure on Iran goes back to last years NIE, which concluded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, and probably hasnt since at least 2004. At the time that was hailed as a victory for Iran, and one of its major effects was to rule out US military action to halt any Iranian nuclear program, which was looking increasingly likely at the time. But ruling out military action has freed up other actors to pressure Iran without fear of inadvertantly authorising any US military strike (as was retroactively applied in the case of Iraq).
I think this can go some way to explaining the recent changes in policies towards the Iran issue, particularly Russia who is still pretty close to Iran.
First of all, in relation to Missile Defence, the US plan to install radars in the Chzech Republic and interceptors in Poland was premised on defending against the threat of weapons of mass destruction coming from 'Rogue states', primarily Iran. That was stupid when it was first brought up, as even though it was assumed Iran was developing nuclear weapons, they didnt have any sort of delivery vehicle that could actually threaten Western Europe, let alone the US. and besides that, the Science behind the placement and effectiveness of the interceptors was dubious considering they were meant to be for Iran. So clearly we have a missile defence system that is targeted at Russia. and now after the NIE, and the fact that Iran doesnt even have the weapons program any more, that becomes even clearer.
Secondly: The question needs to be asked of everyone rejecting the validity of the NIE, and what they are really disputing, particularly policymakers in the US and Israel, who have been the most vocal in opposition. If they havent seen the classified report, which I suspect many of them havent, then they cant really be objecting to the report and the evidence itself. They are only rejecting the conclusion it comes to.
Seeing that its a monday, and the real version finished last week (why does it ever finish?) I'll do my own review of the weekend news, mostly The Age. First of all, the Sunday newspapers are shit, so I wont really bother looking at them. Second of all, The Herald Sun isn't as bad as every one says it is, considering that its only a tabloid anyway. at least it gets the facts right most of the time, even if the editorial is a little skewed.
Thirdly, most importantly, The Age is a mixed bag. While the opinion articles are usually quite good. There is some actual range of opinion, and regular writers, such as economics editor Kenneth Davidson, or Robert Manne, are consistently good. Waleed Aly's article in Saturdays Age, 'Too tough for our own good', on the war on terror, was fantastic, and I recommend it. (I would link to it, but I can't find it anywhere)
However, The same mistakes The Age made in supporting the war on Iraq in 2003 are being made right now. Marko Beljac has already made a few (justified) complaints against the Age here and here, and now they're at it again over Iran's Nuclear program. While some of the Age's writers are probably completely rational, a few others a clearly pushing for war.
The story in Saturdays Age was titled 'Iran a Year off nuclear warhead, says UN'. Now this is serious bullshit being peddled out here. Firstly it was the IAEA that said it, not the UN, although it is considered a UN watchdog, so that can be excused. Secondly, and most importantly, that is not what the report stated, and it is not even what the story itself stated. The story goes...
"The installation of 3000 functioning centrifuges at Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz is a "red line" drawn by the US across which Washington had said it would not let Iran pass. When spinning at full speed they can produce enough weapons-grade uranium (enriched to more than 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year..."
Clearly that does not mean that Iran will, or even can, have a warhead within a year. There is alot more to building a nuclear warhead than having the Uranium for it, and currently Iran does not even have that. Then a delivery vehicle is even more trouble on top of that. Clearly TheAge is not too concerned that its readers get the correct impression as to what is actually happening in Iran, only that they get what the editors consider the 'right' impression. The impression that lead to war.
All the current discussion in The Age and elsewhere rests on the dubious assuption that Iran WANTS a nuclear weapon, and is ACTUALLY pursuing it. As I have blogged about before, this is based on nothing, and leads to irrational and alarmist assumptions like these.
The article seemingly attempts to discredit the parts of the IAEA report that document Iran's cooperation with the agency by attributing them to 'Russian officials' rathet than looking at the report itself. It also waits until the end to mention that the 3000 centrifuges are not even up and running properly yet, so at the current rate the supposed warhead is very far away.
The article was taken from a Guardian story by Julian Borger which was titled 'Decision time for US over Iran threat', which is editorialising enough in labelling Iran a threat, but is not as bad as The Age's take on the issue.
Within the current international political climate, with the US persistently pushing for strong action, including war, against Iran, it is dangerous and reckless for The Age, supposedly the paper for progressive opinion, to be arguing a line like this one. The Age seems determined to provide assitance to those trying to convince us that war is necessary, has it learnt nothing from the invasion of Iraq?
How may poeple have to be killed, and how much larger must the conflict in the Middle East get before The Age will stop supporting these imperialist advenures?
What we can be sure of, when it does come out, those pushing for war will dismiss it, and the same over the top expectations on Iran's nuclear capacity will be pulled out again, based on the same unsubstantiated assumptions. Heres some from the past to amuse you...
“Late 1991: In congressional reports and CIA assessments, the United States estimates that there is a ‘high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.’ A February 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives suggests that these two or three nuclear weapons will be operational between February and April 1992.”
“February 24, 1993: CIA director James Woolsey says that Iran is still 8 to 10 years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon, but with assistance from abroad it could become a nuclear power earlier.”
“January 1995: The director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, John Holum, testifies that Iran could have the bomb by 2003.”
“January 5, 1995: U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry says that Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb, although ‘how soon…depends how they go about getting it.’”
“April 29, 1996: Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres says ‘he believes that in four years, they [Iran] may reach nuclear weapons.’”
“October 21, 1998: General Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, says Iran could have the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons within five years. ‘If I were a betting man,’ he said, ‘I would say they are on track within five years, they would have the capability.’”
“January 17, 2000: A new CIA assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities says that the CIA cannot rule out the possibility that Iran may possess nuclear weapons. The assessment is based on the CIA’s admission that it cannot monitor Iran’s nuclear activities with any precision and hence cannot exclude the prospect that Iran may have nuclear weapons.”
You would think that clarifying the issues and looking at the scientific aspects of Irans nuclear program would be seen as a constructive step by the international community and the US. Thats how you find out if Iran really does have a nuclear weapons program right? Finding out if they are actually developing the infrastructure for nuclear weapons.
Apparently not. The US doesn't seem to care that the head of the IAEA is saying there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. They have dismissed the findings of the IAEA in the past on this issue, and its continuing now. "This is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon” said a whitehouse spokeswoman. Actually I believe not.
Iran can argue a need for a civilian nuclear program, because despite massive oil reserves it lacks significant infrastructure. Sanctions, such the ones recently tightened by the US, only add to Irans energy needs.
Strangely enough, the threat of war from the worlds most powerful military also only adds to Irans need for a significant deterrent.....such as a nuclear weapon...?
The web is alive with the sound of attacking Iran. Not the actual sounds, but everyone has something to say about Bush's (possible) next major Middle East venture. Will there be an invasion? 'Surgical' air strikes? When? Will it be accompanied by an attack on Syria by Israel? Is it motivated by the nuclear program? What’s the influence of Iraq? I think overall, I would be a little apprehensive if I was in Tehran at the moment.
The context.
US foreign policy under the Bush administration is guided by an 'imperial grand strategy', enunciated by the Project for a New American Century in part as "strengthen(ing) our ties to democratic allies and ... challeng(ing) regimes hostile to our interests and values" and also "preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles". PNAC is made up of many familiar names, many of which are (or were until recently) part of the Bush White House.
The implications of this are pretty clear, and an attack on Iran would not be out of the ordinary when neoconservative thinking is guiding the US government. Strategic control of the Middle East has been a clear objective under Bush, and a policy of containing rivals and preventing challenges to regional hegemony could easily motivate an attack on Iran.
Chomsky has written a good article on this. Its part of Znet's Iran Watch, which I would recommend if you want to know more about this issue.
Chomsky writes that the conflict with Iran can be seen as part of a 'Cold War II', and is even being run by former Kremlinologists Rice and Gates. However at least during Cold War I the USSR was actually something worth containing, whereas Iran is being used more as a way of recapturing "the glorious days of Cold War I". This containment means supporting regional tyrannies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who Condoleeza Rice describes as "forces of moderation and reform". Iranian influence in the region seems to be welcomed by many within the Middle East, with even US client states Iraq and Afghanistan receiving it with open arms.
Washington's fears may also be motivated by Asia-wide events, such as Iran welcome to meetings of the increasing powerful Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a security club led by US rivals Russia and China. The US sought observer status, but was refused. Iran’s association with the SCO gives China and Russia another foot up in the Middle East, which Washington would be eager to avoid. Increasingly, oil from the region is also 'heading east', reducing Washington’s influence further.
US (and therefore media) attention on Iran has been focussed most recently on two things, support for terrorism in Iraq, and Tehran’s nuclear program. Washington has accused Iran of ‘meddling’ in Iraq, which was apparently a country free from any other foreign influence before this. There are apparently Iranian supplied weapons being used against US troops in Iraq, and while this is definitely possible, it does remind me of sections of William Blum’s Killing Hope.
The more interesting issue is the nuclear program, which I have blogged about before. The nuclear program seems to be slowing down, and Iran can convincingly claim a need for nuclear power. If you think rationally, the threat of attack from the globes most powerful military is giving Iran a pretty big incentive to develop nuclear weapons.
The Plan
The idea of a bombing plan was reported in the Times a week ago, and it was not exactly a small-scale plan, with over 1,200 targets in a three day campaign designated to destroy Iran’s military capacity. Washington is committed to use “rapid, overwhelming force” when the time comes.
Majorie Cohn writes that the wheels are already in motion to start selling this new war to the public, in a surprisingly similar way to the way the Iraq war was promoted. Apparently Dick Cheney, the last of the old guard, and Senator Lieberman (a possible Gonzales replacement) have been the major forces behind the push for war. A good timeline of how this war has progressed in the US is available here.
The link with Israel is clear, as Israel is a major aspect aspect of US policies in the region. The attack on Iran could be accompanied by a simultaneous Israeli attack on Syria, in a move to wipe out the last real opponents to US hegemony in the region. This also relates to Israeli BMD.
As I said earlier, I wouldn’t want to be in Tehran right now.
The IAEA report on the implementation of the NPT safeguards Agreement has been circulated within the IAEA, and their website states that "The Reports circulation is restricted" and it "Cannot be released to the public".
However it has been unofficially released by ISIS. The Report can be accessed here, GOV/2007/48.
According to the report, the earlier IAEA release i blogged about, INFCIRC/77, is the actual agreement, rather than just Iran's interpretation.
Im definitely not a nuclear scientist, but the report suggests that the safeguards arent going too badly, and for various reasons Iran is slowing down enrichment processes. Marko Beljac has a good explanation of it here.
So if the IAEA is actually achieving some progress, why all the talk of war in Washington?
