UK Foreign Secretary Miliband has got the whole Iran nuclear issue the wrong way round

 

Wednesday, November 26, 2008
By Kaleem Omar
Tony Blair may be history, but there are still plenty of British politicians left in the Labour Party government who are only too willing to serve as poodles to US President George W. Bush and his neo-con cabal, even in the waning days of Dubya�s presidency. One such politician is British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, whom Iran on Monday accused of having Zionist ties after he said that the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is �the most immediate threat to Middle East stability.�
This, of course, is a case of Miliband toeing the line that Bush and members of his administration have been peddling for years, despite the fact that Iran has repeatedly insisted that its uranium enrichment programme is not aimed at making nuclear bombs but at manufacturing fuel for the nuclear power reactor it is building with Russian help to generate electricity for Iran�s national grid.
The Bush administration continues to claim that Iran is �the most immediate threat� to Middle East stability, just as it used to claim back in 2002 and in the first three months of 2003 that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that � in Bush�s words � �posed an immediate threat to the national security of the United States�� In fact, of course, as the whole world knew long ago, Iraq did not possess any WMD and posed no threat whatsoever to the mighty United States.
The whole Iraqi WMD thing was a lie cooked up by the Bush administration as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq. When no WMD were found there by a 1,400-member team of US weapons inspectors and intelligence agents sent into Iraq by Bush after the invasion, wags promptly dubbed the so-called Iraqi WMD �weapons of mass disappearance.�
Then-US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly lied to the media about Iraq possessing WMD, going so far during one media briefing at the Pentagon to assert that not only did the US �know� that Iraq had WMD but also �knew� where they were.
Of course, the US �knew� no such thing. The whole thing was an outright lie, which eventually resulted in the Bush administration ending up with a massive amount of egg on its face.
The only �discovery� made by the US weapons inspectors during their 18-month-long search of so-called �suspect� Iraqi sites was that of a trailer, which the Bush administration initially claimed with fiendish glee was �a mobile laboratory for making chemical weapons.� Only two days later, however, it came out that the mobile laboratory was in fact a facility for manufacturing gas for weather balloons. Within hours of this news hitting the news wires, a highly embarrassed US CIA hurriedly removed all references to the so-called �mobile laboratory for making chemical weapons� from its web site.
Now, we have British Foreign Secretary David Miliband claiming that the �prospect� of Iran having nuclear weapons poses �the most immediate threat� to Middle Eastern stability� and appealing to Tehran�s neighbours to put pressure on Iranian President Mohmoud Ahmadinejad.
In saying what he did, Miliband conveniently choose to ignore the fact that the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Commission (the UN�s nuclear watchdog body) has said on more than one occasion that its inspectors have found no evidence that Iran is making a nuclear weapon. Miliband also choose to ignore the fact that in September last year, US intelligence agencies submitted a National Intelligence Estimate to President Bush stating that Iran was �at least ten years away from making a nuclear weapon.�
Even if we were to assume that Iran�s uranium-enrichment programme is aimed at making nuclear weapons (although there is no evidence to this effect), the US National Intelligence Estimate�s �ten years� time frame hardly constitutes �the most immediate threat� to Middle East stability � as falsely claimed by Miliband.
In fact, of course, the only country in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons is the Zionist state of Israel. According to the latest estimates, Israel has about 400 nuclear weapons in its arsenal and a variety of aircraft and missiles capable of delivering the weapons to all the Arab states and Iran. Israel also has the fourth most powerful conventional army in the world (after the United States, Russia and China).
On top of all this, Israel has long had an American nuclear umbrella, which successive US administrations have said they would use in support of Israel in the event of its existence being threatened. This commitment will be carried forward by the administration of US President-Elect Barack Obama after he takes office on January 20 next year. In August 2008, Obama publicly stated that he had a deep and abiding commitment to Israel�s security. He had nothing to say, however, about who will protect the beleaguered Palestinian people from the on-going acts of state terrorism unleashed on them by Israel.
In his anti-Iran diatribe on Monday, British Foreign Secretary Miliband, too, had nothing to say about the threat to Middle East stability posed by Israel�s nuclear arsenal. In October this year, Miliband warned of a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East �if Iran was allowed to press ahead unchecked with a uranium enrichment programme.� Again, however, he had nothing to say about Israel�s nuclear weapons programme, which began back in the late 1950s.
The Jewish lobby in Washington is so influential that no American politician dares to say anything critical against Israel. Back in the 1980s, during the Reagan presidency, when then-US Defence Secretary Harold Brown was mildly critical of Israel at a press conference (saying that Israel should not deal so harshly with the Palestinian people), the Jewish lobby created such a fuss that Reagan had to sack Brown within 48 hours.
The only American president who ever criticised Israel�s nuclear programme was John F. Kennedy. In early 1963, he wrote a letter to the Israeli prime minister saying that Israel should stop pressing ahead with its nuclear weapons programme. Six months later, Kennedy was dead � assassinated in circumstances that have remained a mystery to this day. It is now widely believed by many in the United States that the Warren Commission report into Kennedy�s assassination was a cover-up job, designed to throw a veil of obfuscation over the identity of the real perpetrators and pin the blame on a lone American gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. A lot of Americans, however, are convinced that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was behind the assassination � which had all the hallmarks of a highly professional hit.
AFP and Reuters � both Western news agencies � reported on Monday that: �World powers, fearing that Iran might make atom bombs under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, have offered Tehran incentives and talks in return for a halt to uranium enrichment.� But why have these same Western World powers had nothing to say for decades about Israel�s known nuclear weapons programme � the details of which were revealed at exhaustive length some years ago by the well-known American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in his authoritative book �The Samson Option.�
Hersh is no ordinary hack; he is the same journalist who broke the story about the My Lai massacre of 350 women and children carried out by US soldiers in Vietnam in the 1960s. He is also the one who broke the story about the torture of Iraqi detainees by American soldiers at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad in 2004. I mention these facts in order to make the point that Hersh is an investigative journalist of the highest credibility.
AFP and Reuters reported on Monday that: �Iran has ignored five UN resolutions demanding a suspension of uranium enrichment, which can supply nuclear fuel as well as the fissile core of an atom bomb in high purification.�
But neither of the two Western news agencies made any mention of the fact that Israel has ignored dozens of UN General Assembly resolutions demanding that it immediate vacate the Arab territories captured by it during the Arab-Israel war of 1967 � which, it should be remembered, was started by Israel and not by the Arab states.
In blatant disregard of these UN General Assembly resolutions, Israel continues to occupy Syria�s Golan Heights, the Palestinian West Bank and the Gaza Strip to this day. It also remained in utterly illegal occupation of southern Lebanon for twenty long years, following its unprovoked invasion of Lebanon in 1982 when Ariel Sharon (aka �The Butcher of Sabra and Chatillia�) was the Israeli defence minister. He later became Israel�s prime minister. When he was prime minister, he ordered Israeli army bulldozers to demolish the Palestinian refugee camp at Jenin. Scores of Palestinian refugees were reported to have been buried alive under the rubble.

UK Foreign Secretary Miliband has got the whole Iran nuclear issue the wrong way round

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

 

As United States president-elect Barack Obama prepares to take over the White House two months from now, the mainstream US media have been awash reports about Iran's nuclear "threat" that will likely influence the coming Obama administration away from introducing any major change in the US's hitherto coercive Iran policy.
The latest anti-Iran spin is that Tehran has accumulated enough nuclear fuel for one nuclear bomb and that given Iran's rapid progress in installing more centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran's nuclear bomb-making capability will substantially increase in the near future.
Leading the pack in this media endeavor for a Chomskyian

"manufactured consensus" on Iran's nuclear threat is the nation's leading newspaper, the New York Times. Although known as the voice of the liberal "eastern establishment", the Times is perceived by many as a pillar of support for pro-Israel global public diplomacy and, therefore, it comes as little surprise that the respected newspaper may have been churning out alarmist and misleading articles about Iran's purported nuclear threat.
Case in point, in a high-profile article by two veteran reporters, William Broad and David Sanger, the paper claimed as per the expert opinion of various nuclear scientists, that Iran had already amassed "nuclear fuel for one weapon", to paraphrase the article's catchy title, and that, naturally, would be a serious problem for the upcoming Obama administration.
But does it? The article does not mention the following important, and highly relevant facts: 1. Iran's nuclear fuel is kept in containers sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
2. As stated by Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the Natanz facility is under the surveillance of IAEA cameras 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
3. Contrary to misleading claims by various US nuclear experts such as David Kay, a former weapons of mass destruction inspector, there is no evidence that Iran has gone beyond low-grade enrichment of uranium to the point of "weapons-grade" enrichment. In fact, the various IAEA reports confirm the fallacy of such unsubstantiated claims, routinely featured in Israeli papers' biased reports on Iran.
4. Nor do the reporters give more than cursory attention to the content of recent IAEA reports on Iran, which confirm the agency "has been able to continue to confirm the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran".
5. Another major flaw in Broad and Sanger's piece is that they deliberately underestimate the technical challenge of leaping from low-level enrichment to weapons-grade to a simple matter of "further purification".
6. The fact that the IAEA is well-equipped to uncover any attempt by Iran to engage in weapons-grade enrichment activities is mentioned only in passing, without influencing the gist of the article and the planned paranoia lurking behind it.
7. Finally, the whole argument that Iran's ability to produce nuclear fuel represents a "threat" warranting sanctions and other coercive counter-measures by the world community falls by the wayside in light of the legal framework of Iran's nuclear activity under the articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and Iran's nuclear transparency mentioned above.
Instead of focusing on the objective guarantee of Iran's peaceful uranium enrichment activities, the reporters deliberately hyped up the perceived threat of a "nuclear breakout" via future scenario-setting of "if" Iran exits the NPT and terminates its cooperation with the IAEA, as if the US and other Western governments should engage in "pre-emptive" policy vis-a-vis Iran on the basis of such theoretical guesswork. Of course, the absurdity of the "inevitability of a nuclear weapon capable Iran" speaks for itself. Nothing is inevitable in world affairs and such deterministic analysis are inherently wedded to dogmatic assumptions about what is otherwise a highly fluid situation.
Given Iran's possession of dual purpose nuclear technology, although the potential for a future break out is inherently nested in this technology, there are several important intervening variables missing, without which this potential would not be actualized - one being the absence of a nuclear threat to Iran warranting Iran's reaction to go nuclear.
Sure Russia, Pakistan, India, China, and Israel have nuclear weapons, but none poses a nuclear threat to Iran, not even "out of area" Israel. If anything Iran's main fear today is the future break-up of Pakistan and the threats of Sunni extremism in Pakistan, but this is a low to medium level concern and not by any means blown out of proportion. Tehran remains confident about the ability of Pakistan's government to fight off the extremists and prevent them from accessing its nuclear arsenal.
With respect to Israel, some 1,500 kilometers distant from Iran's national borders, it is hard to digest the argument that Iran needs nuclear bombs to counter Israel's nuclear arsenal, principally because as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself has repeatedly stated, Israel's bombs did not help it win the latest war in Lebanon nor have they been a factor in its previous wars with its Arab neighbors. So why should they be a factor of concern for Iran now? The absence of a credible answer is, in fact, one main reason why Iran is not racing to manufacture nuclear warheads today.
As for the US military threat against Iran, in light of the US military quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the overstretched nature of the US military. Tehran does not foresee an imminent threat of confrontation with the US, despite the occasional tensions over the "turf war" in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
On the contrary, the mere post-9/11 proximity of US forces with Iran has translated into a qualitative deepening of diplomatic and security dialogue and interactions between the two countries and, henceforth, with the help of more Cold War style confidence-building measures, the tensions between Washington and Tehran can be lessened considerably.
What both Washington and Tel Aviv fail to realize is that their own action, of constantly threatening Iran with nuclear attacks, is tantamount to playing with fire. Such threats heighten Iran's sense of national security vulnerability and chip away at the latency of Iran's nuclear potential. In other words, the perceived remedy of issuing threats in the hope of thwarting Iran's march toward nuclear bombs has the exact opposite effect of poisoning the climate where Iran feels safe enough not to go beyond its reliance on conventional arms and acquire the actual bombs.
To return to the New York Times, a number of its columnists, such as Thomas Friedman and David Brooks, have also been fully involved in cultivating the perception of an "Iran threat". In Friedman's recent column titled "Show me the money" he takes this for granted and takes European, and the Russian and Chinese governments to task to prove their support for Obama by imposing tougher sanctions on Iran.
This aside, in light of the news of the impending selection of the ardently pro-Israel senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, as Obama's secretary of state, we are unlikely to witness any moderation of anti-Iran bias in Washington, influenced as it is by the incessant wheels of the "Fourth Estate".
Needless to say, hardly enough of this is encouraging and, indeed, is rather depressing and despairing of the hope that true change is coming to the practice and orientation of US foreign policy. The sheer speed of "over-Clintonization" of the Obama administration, reflected in the selection of so many officials linked to the Clinton "circle", none of whom can be regarded as agents of change, alone indicates that the hope for an Obama-led change in US foreign policy may be a hope against hope.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

'Israel should consider killing Ahmedinejad'- Hindustan Times

"Any they say Ahmadinejad is nuts!"

Israel's former Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya'alon, being touted as a possible candidate for defence minister if Likud party wins the elections, has said the West must consider "all options" necessary to foil Iran's nuclear programme, including assassination of its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"We have to confront the Iranian revolution immediately. There is no way to stabilise the Middle East today without defeating the Iranian regime. The Iranian nuclear programme must be stopped," Ya'alon told The Sydney Morning Herald in an interview.

When asked whether "all options" included a military deposition of Ahmadinejad and the rest of Iran's current leadership, Ya'alon reportedly said,"We have to consider killing him. All options must be considered."

Ya'alon, who served asChief of Staff during turbulent times between2002 and 2005 at the peak of second intifada told The Herald that a military strike on Iran would also be welcomed by regional elements as quelling the most divisive conflict in the Middle East today.

"Any military strike in Iran will be quietly applauded by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf states," he reportedly said.

"It is a misconception to think that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the most important in the Middle-East. The Shiite-Sunni schism is much bigger, the Persian-Arab divide is bigger, the struggle between national regimes and jihadism is much bigger," he stressed.

"And I can't imagine that theUS will want to share power in the Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran," he further added.

The former Israel Defence Forces Chief said that hehas for long seen Iran as the 'source of regional terrorism' and was surprised that the United States chose to invade Iraq instead.

"I was chief of staff during Operation Iraqi Freedom and I was surprised the US decided to go into Iraq instead of Iran," he said adding, "Unfortunately, the American public didn't have the political stomach to go into Iran."

Last week, Ya'alon announced his candidacy for the Likud party list in the upcoming Knesset elections.

Meanwhile, an aide to the former Chief of Staff has denied that he suggested killing Ahmedinejad.

"He said that Israel needs to defeat the Iranian regime," the aide told The Jerusalem Post

'Israel should consider killing Ahmedinejad'- Hindustan Times

U.S.: Obama Advised to Forgo More Threats to Iran

 

WASHINGTON, Nov 17 (IPS) - A strategy of threats and "provocations" against Iran by the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama is likely to be counter-productive, according to a new report released here Friday by a group of 20 former top U.S. diplomats and regional experts.
The group, co-chaired by former U.N. Amb. Thomas Pickering and James Dobbins, a top diplomatic troubleshooter under both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, called instead for the new administration to "open the door to direct, unconditional and comprehensive negotiations at the senior diplomatic level," as well as unofficial contacts and exchanges.
"Paradoxical as it may seem amid all the heated media rhetoric, sustained engagement is far more likely to strengthen United States national security at this stage than either escalation to war or continued efforts to threaten, intimidate or coerce Iran," according to the group, which also assailed what it called eight "myths" propagated by neo-conservatives and other hawks who have been pushing for greater pressure on Tehran to give in to western demands that it halt its nuclear programme.
The "Joint Experts' Statement on Iran", the product of several months of internal discussions, comes amid growing speculation that the Bush administration will try to open a U.S. Interests Section in Tehran in the two months left in its tenure to help lay the groundwork for direct diplomatic engagement with Iran, which Obama promised during the presidential campaign.
It also comes amid intensified jockeying among various factions and individuals for key Middle East-related posts in the incoming administration. Amb. Dennis Ross, an Obama adviser who led peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians during the Clinton years, is reportedly campaigning hard, with the backing of the so-called "Israel Lobby", to be appointed as special envoy to Iran and the wider region.
Ross, who, along with several other hawkish Obama advisers, was a charter member of United Against Nuclear Iran, signed a recent report drafted by two prominent neo-conservatives which argued that a deterrence would not work against a nuclear-capable Iran because of the "Islamic Republic's extremist ideology".
The report, sponsored by the "Bipartisan Policy Centre", also argued that the new president should make clear from his first day in office that he was prepared to militarily attack Iran with force if, in the face of escalating U.S. and international pressure on Tehran, it did not give up enriching uranium on its soil.
During his campaign, Obama stated on several occasions that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons was "unacceptable" and that he would never take military options off the table to prevent it. He has also sponsored legislation to tighten economic sanctions against Iran and companies that do business with it.
At the same time, however, he has repeatedly stressed that he would engage Tehran diplomatically without preconditions, even at the presidential level. At least one adviser has suggested that Obama would offer "more carrots" -- even as it seeks strong sanctions -- as part of a bargaining process than the Bush administration has considered.
The Experts' Statement, however, argues that a punitive sanctions approach, let alone a military attack, has been and is likely to continue to be counter-productive. "U.S. efforts to manage Iran through isolation, threats and sanctions have been tried intermittently for more than two decades," according to the group, which was also co-chaired by Columbia University Prof. Gary Sick, who dealt with Iran on the National Security Council staff of former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan.
"In that time they have not solved any major problem in U.S.-Iran relations, and have made most of them worse," it noted.
"Threats are not cowing Iran and the current regime in Tehran is not in imminent peril," it went on. "The United States needs to stop the provocations and take a long-term view with this regime, as it did with the Soviet Union and China."
The statement said retaining the threat of tougher sanctions if negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme fail is justifiable, but that the nuclear issue should be raised as part of a broader U.S.-Iran opening and that would include "the credible prospect of security assurances and specific, tangible benefits such as the easing of U.S. sanctions in response to positive policy shifts in Iran."
The new administration should also appoint a special envoy both to deal "comprehensively and constructively with Iran (as opposed to trading accusations) and explore its willingness to work with the United States on issues of common concern", particularly "in shaping the future of Iraq, Afghanistan and the region". It notes that the U.S. and Iran both support the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and face "common enemies" in Afghanistan in the Taliban, al Qaeda, and drug traffickers.
Dobbins, Bush's special envoy for Afghanistan and currently director of the International Security programme at the RAND Corporation, has repeatedly praised Iran's cooperation with U.S. efforts in ousting the Taliban and al Qaeda after 9/11 and setting up the government of President Hamid Karzai there.
The statement also stressed that a "U.S. rapprochement with Iran, even an opening of talks, could help in dealing with Arab-Israeli issues," given Tehran's influence with Palestinian Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah.
The statement also addressed certain "myths" which it said had been used by U.S. hawks to discourage engagement, including the notion that the religious nature of the regime renders it undeterrable and that its leadership is implacably opposed to the United States and determined to "wipe Israel off the map".
Citing specific examples of Tehran's foreign policy pragmatism over past two decades, including its secret arms trade with Israel and active support for the U.S. in Afghanistan, the statement asserts that Iran's "recent history...makes crystal clear that national self-preservation and regional influence -- not some quest for martyrdom in the service of Islam -- is Iran's main foreign policy goal."
It also cited declarations by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that Iran will not attack Israel unless it is attacked first and that "the day that relations with America prove beneficial for the Iranian nation, I will be the first one to approve of that."
While Iran's nuclear programme gives "cause for deep concern," its specific intent -- as a source of national pride, as a bargaining chip in broader negotiations with the U.S., as a deterrent against the U.S. or Israel, or as a weapon to support aggressive goals -- remains murky, according to the statement.
"The only effective way to illuminate -- and constructively alter -- Iran's intentions is through skillful and careful diplomacy. History shows that sanctions alone are unlikely to succeed, and a strategy limited to escalating threats or attacking Iran is likely to backfire -- creating or hardening a resolve to acquire nuclear weapons while inciting a backlash against us throughout the region," it said.
Besides the three co-chairs, the group's members included Emile Nakhleh, a retired senior CIA officer who served as director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Programme; Hadi Ghaemi, coordinator of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran; and academic specialists on Iran, Shi'a Islam, and nuclear proliferation and technology.

U.S.: Obama Advised to Forgo More Threats to Iran

The Truth Seeker - Myth of Iran wiping Israel off the map dispelled

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is due to address the UN General Assembly in New York on September 23. The following is an exclusive Press TV interview with the president on his message for the world. He also sheds light on several controversial issues.
Press TV: Mr. President, What part of your agenda or your message to the United Nations or the American people can you share with us before your trip?
Ahmadinejad: In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. I am going to attend this important international forum to hear from others and also to offer arguments, our viewpoints and positions and to have dialogue and conversations with different people there.
And the recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency is very clear. It has been confirmed that there is no diversion in our activities, and there is no negative point in this report.
Washington has lately claimed that the case is outside the purview of the IAEA and that the IAEA does not have the mandate to examine such issues. But we have said okay, legally speaking, this has no legal basis. The last part of Mr. ElBaradei's report has no legal basis, but the part that is based on the law and the rules of the IAEA is very clear. They have confirmed many times now that Iran has shown no diversion in its activities.
We are going through a very natural process, and some people are causing a lot of noises and a huge hullabaloo, which is not really important. All this not only has no legal value, it also has no propaganda value because they are moving from a position of illegality and there is no room in international relations to do such things. It will only isolate them.
What we are saying is very clear. Our activities are totally legal and peaceful; we are exercising our inalienable rights and do not want to violate the rights of any other people. Our activities are very transparent� We have the greatest amount of cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog and have provided all the necessary information to the IAEA.
My message to the people of the United States is very clear as well. It is a message to all world nations� We believe that the relations that prevail in the world today are cruel relations. There are gaps and distance between nations. Through propaganda, gaps are created in order to fill the pockets of wealthy people and capitalists with more money and power. We oppose these cruel and brutal relationships.
We want friendship for all world nations. We have respect for all nations and we believe that this minority, this bullying minority� If they step aside and give the affairs of the world to the nations of the world, people can live together in peace and will not have so many problems. We are friends of all world nations.
The people of the United States do not have any problem with the people of Iran. Of course, there is a one-sided propaganda network that is putting a lot of pressure on the people of the US to make things very difficult. It does not allow the people of the United States to express their views and to prevail; we hope these pressures will be removed.
Today the image, the personality and the resources of the people of the United States are being used to support criminal elements, those who occupy other countries. We do not believe that the people of the United States are satisfied with the sorts of things that are taking place.
No nation wants to support the killers. The Zionist regime is a regime that will disappear. The reason and philosophy of their existence no longer exists. This regime is based on a wrong foundation and with the passage of time and by themselves� their personality is becoming clear - they are not just. The regime will not gain legitimacy with the passage of time. They themselves know this.
Press TV: Alright, you just mentioned Israel and you called it the Zionist regime. A lot of controversy surrounds this issue. On the eve of your trip, the Jewish lobby is at work protesting, but behind the scenes stronger hands are at work to lobby each and every important politician in New York for both sanctions and a possible military attack against Iran. I want to know about this issue and the controversy of Israel being wiped off the map. A lot of controversy is surrounding that� was it a mistranslation, not a mistranslation? Mike Wallace had this interview with you a couple of years back. One part of it, a major part of it, was edited out. Your idea on the destruction of the state of Israel and Israel should be wiped off the map? The part you talked about democracy and referendum?
Ahmadinejad: We said we do not accept this regime and the solution that we are presenting is a humanitarian solution. It is a very clear solution. We are saying that the Palestinians should decide their destiny themselves; they should choose their own political system. What we are saying is very clear. We believe that the people whose ancestors have lived in that land and own the land although they have been deported and expelled and are under occupation, we are saying that they are the ones�.
Press TV: So you did not threaten to wipe Israel off the map as an Iranian leader? That we will wipe Israel off the map?
Ahmadinejad: No. We say that the people of Palestine should have rights and when the people of Palestine exercise this right, this will happen. Where is the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union has been wiped off the map. What happened to the Soviet Union? The decision of the people, the vote of the people. When the people of the Soviet Union, the Russian people, were allowed to decide to take charge of their destiny, the Soviet Union disappeared.
The Zionist regime is an artificial regime� a fictitious regime. You brought people from different parts of the world and you have built this state. No, that cannot last, it is not sustainable. If they do not listen to our solution, this will happen one day.
Press TV: Now this issue of a fabricated regime. There have been reports that they are planning airstrikes on Iran. Every single day we are hearing reports that Israel is getting frustrated with our nuclear program�.
Ahmadinejad: They are really too small to be a threat to Iran. They should protect themselves. They are not even able to protect themselves. The position of Iran is very clear. The capacity and the power of the people of Iran is very clear. The people of Iran are able to defend their territorial integrity and their national sovereignty. They know that Iran is a great country, an important power� a humanitarian power. The people of Iran know how to defend themselves and such propaganda has no impact on the people of Iran. The era of making threats is over.
Press TV: Let's talk about your UN trip. Everyone is talking about reform in the United Nations, including the new president of the General Assembly that surprised the world with harsh comments, anti-American comments. He talked about imperialism. He talked about the addiction to war�
Ahmadinejad: You should not limit me to comments by one person.
Press TV: Everyone is talking about reforms. What reforms do you do you see fit for the United Nations? What reforms are you seeking? I understand Iran is vying with Japan over a seat in the Security Council? That seat will be vacant in January.
Ahmadinejad: You see, the United Nations should be really truly united nations�a universal organization. It should not be an organization that belongs to certain circles and certain powers. All nations of the world should have the right to vote and to decide and democratic relationships should prevail over all organs of the United Nations. Now, there are people going to the General Assembly meeting and have to get permission from the government of the United States. How is the United Nations democratic?! The United Nations should be in an independent, impartial country, so that everybody can travel there without any limitations. This is a forum for exchanges views. It is a collection of the viewpoints of different nations. That's why we need to reform, to overhaul the whole United Nations.
Press TV: Are there going to be any events similar to what you did last year in Columbia on your itinerary.
Ahmadinejad: We have arranged some meetings. There is going to be this interfaith dialogue and various meetings. We are going to have a meeting with some students.
Press TV: One last question. What do you expect to gain from this perhaps last trip and your fourth to the UN?
Ahmadinejad: I am only carrying out my responsibility. My duty is to present the message of friendship to the entire humanity. Now, what will happen� I do not know.

The Truth Seeker - Myth of Iran wiping Israel off the map dispelled

Ken Gude: Despite the advice of foreign policy experts, John McCain is still against negotiating with Iran | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

Experts agree the next US president should negotiate with Iran – but it's not a move John McCain would be willing to make

Comments (28)

• 
  • Monday November 03 2008 20.00 GMT

 

Iran's nuclear programme has returned to the forefront of the US presidential campaign as John McCain tries desperately to scare voters in Florida and Pennsylvania from choosing Barack Obama. The Democratic candidate would, he says, negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programme. The Bush administration has saddled the next president with a bankrupt strategy and a crisis rapidly spinning out of control. Remarkably, there is widespread agreement among foreign policy experts of both parties that changing course and negotiating with Iran early in the next administration is essential to prevent a conflict that could engulf the entire Middle East. The barrage of slime from McCain hides the fact that he has no strategy to resolve the standoff and prevent the coming military confrontation. A vote for John McCain is literally a vote for war with Iran.

Whichever candidate wins tomorrow will inherit a crisis of passive appeasement of Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Bush administration sought an economic stranglehold on Iran through UN sanctions but soaring energy prices wiped out any impact of the weak measures it attained at the security council. It faired no better in its attempts at political isolation, and far from halting Tehran's nuclear drive, the complete failure of the Bush administration's strategy has allowed Iran to accelerate its uranium enrichment programme bringing them much closer to a nuclear capability.

Making the task more difficult, the next president will take over during a period of dramatic political transition in the key countries in the conflict. Not only will there be a new administration in Washington, but there will also be a new government in Israel after fresh elections there in February or March and Iran has its own presidential elections in May. Throughout this period, Iranian nuclear scientists will continue to make progress on the uranium enrichment programme.

Iran is still likely several years from a nuclear weapon, but that is not the only timeline at work and there is a real urgency to change the dynamic surround their nuclear programme. As Iran's uranium enrichment has continued unabated during the Bush administration and new concerns emerge about the scope of its nuclear programme, even moderate Israeli officials are growing increasingly worried about Iran reaching a level of nuclear knowledge that is impossible to turn back. That threshold could be reached in little more than a year even though Iran would still be years from a functioning weapon. Unless the current trajectory of the crisis changes dramatically before that window closes, the Israelis may be compelled to act and fighting could spread across the entire region. Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an action, the next American president must do all that he can to prevent it.

Negotiating without preconditions is the only pathway to a breakthrough that could prevent an Israeli attack. Requiring that your adversary accede to all of your demands before negotiations can begin is simply an excuse not to negotiate. Barack Obama has pledged that he would drop the ultimatum that Iran suspend its nuclear programme before he would meet with the Iranian leader to conduct negotiations to designed to bring Iran's nuclear development to a halt. This shift would allow senior officials from both countries to engage in preparatory meetings to establish a framework for negotiations and the parameters and likelihood of any agreement. This strategy is no guarantee of success, but Obama knows that America's current strategy is an abject failure and that we need to try something different, and he is not alone.

A presidential election campaign is a terrible place to look for consensus across party lines, but that's just what has been happening among foreign and security policy experts of both parties on the question of negotiating with our adversaries. Recently, five former secretaries of state, three Republicans and two Democrats, endorsed talking with Tehran. So has the defence secretary, Robert Gates. Even the new Centcom commander General David Petraeus said last month that "you have to talk to your enemies".

The only one left out is John McCain, who bizarrely seems to think that too much presidential diplomacy caused the current impasse. Earlier in the campaign he derisively said of Obama's proposal that "many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programmes of hostile governments is to have our presidents sit down with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades". McCain's latest decent into dishonour warns that nothing less than a second holocaust could occur if Obama prevails on Tuesday.

All of McCain's incendiary charges hide the fact that, just like his secret plan to kill Osama bin Laden, he has not given any indication what he would do differently from the woefully inadequate efforts of the Bush administration to stop Iran's nuclear programme. After the catastrophe of the Bush administration, we do not have the luxury of repeating the same mistakes. Barack Obama promises the chance of averting disaster. John McCain only promises war.

Ken Gude: Despite the advice of foreign policy experts, John McCain is still against negotiating with Iran | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk