Wednesday, February 25, 2009

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

 

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is increasingly appearing like a dysfunctional fire station - it's become an agency designed to put out fires triggered by the heat of nuclear proliferation, and yet can't help but ignite a few flare-ups along the way.
The recent handling of Iran's

nuclear issue has been such a brushfire for the United Nations' watchdog. The latest report by director general Mohammad ElBaradei has instigated a media furor over the disclosure that the IAEA had previously underestimated the volume of enriched uranium at Iran's nuclear facilities by some 30%.
From the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and London's Mirror, the Guardian and the Financial Times, among other

leading international newspapers, the reaction has been a steady stream of alarmist commentaries. Many reports regard this an Iranian "milestone" in reaching "nuclear break-out capability".
At a crucial time when the Barack Obama administration is pursuing carefully quilted diplomacy to reach out to Tehran, such new alarms are bound to impact the tempo and speed of the White House's approach. Israel has already criticized Washington's tactics as "too slow".
Small wonder then that last Friday the news about Iran's "nuclear milestone" coincided with news from Israel that prime minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu has prioritized Iran's nuclear program as "the greatest existential threat to Israel".
Netanyahu and his hawkish colleagues in the emerging new Israeli government have much to thank from the IAEA for maintaining a cloud of question marks over Iran and its true nuclear "ambitions". Such uncertainties are turned all the more potent by the alarmist spins in the pages of the New York Times and other leading dailies.
And spin they did ever so expertly. A Los Angeles Times report was headlined "Iran has enriched enough to make a bomb, report says" while the New York Times went out of its way to convey the impression that Iran had deliberately "understated" the magnitude of its enriched uranium. The New York Times added serious fuel to this raw information by citing an "anonymous" IAEA official who claimed that "theoretically" Iran is capable of making a nuclear bomb. However, the unnamed source was careful to include important qualifiers, such as "if" Iran kicks out the IAEA or switches off the IAEA surveillance cameras.
More important, such reports give the IAEA a sour reputation. After all, it is fully outside the norms and standards of the UN atomic agency to have one of its senior officials brief reporters and yet refuse to go on the record officially in the name of "diplomatic sensitivities". The anonymous official seems completely oblivious to the double standard of engaging in such "theoretical" posturing that militates against the IAEA's own norms and principles.
"Theoretically, if you count how many uranium 235 atoms there are in 1,000 kilograms of LEU, you will have enough uranium 235 atoms for a significant quantity of [highly enriched uranium]. So in theory, this is possible, but if they use [Natanz], they are not there yet," the senior IAEA official was quoted as saying.
Have any of these high-brow gentlemen at the IAEA ever openly entertained such guess work about other countries, such as Japan, which has enough enriched uranium to manufacture a couple of dozen bombs within months? Why focus only on Iran? Hasn't the time come for the IAEA to level the playing field now that the era of the George W Bush administration's frenzy of Iran disinformation has formally, if not actually, come to a close?
A glance at the Obama administration's reaction to the IAEA report raises issues about the latter question. The US government spokesperson, Gordon Duguid, was quick to denounce Iran and parrot the line that Iran must suspend all its "uranium-enrichment related reprocessing". This despite the fact that all the IAEA reports - including this most recent one - state categorically that "there are no indications of ongoing reprocessing activities" at Iran's nuclear facilities.
Wouldn't it be nice if the US officials first bothered to read - or read carefully - the reports that they rely on to sledgehammer Iran? It would be equally important for Washington, and the wealth of Iran-bashers in the Western media, to ponder the IAEA clarification on the issue of Iran's under-reporting the volume of its enriched uranium that has been communicated to this author by the agency's spokeswoman, Melissa Fleming.
IAEA's clarification
Fleming's letter to this author, dated February 22, 2009, states: "There have been a number of reports in the media commenting that Iran has under-reported the production of low enriched uranium at Natanz. In this regard, it is important to note that:

  • As clearly indicated, 'estimates' of production quoted in IAEA reports to the Board of Governors have been just that, ie best estimates made by the operator (this is also the case for the estimate of production - 171 kg between 18 November 2008 and 31 January 2009 - given in the latest report);
  • Such estimates are based on the operator's predictions of how the plant will perform - they are not formal declarations by the country;
  • In contrast, the figures given in the IAEA's latest report for the amount of low enriched uranium actually produced as of 17 November 2008 (839 kg of UF6) were based on actual measurement made by the operator that have been carefully verified by the Agency.
    It is also important to note that:
  • No nuclear material could have been removed from the facility without the Agency's knowledge since the facility is subject to video surveillance and the nuclear material has been kept under seal;
  • The Agency has no reason at all to believe that the estimates of the low enriched uranium produced in the facility were an intentional error by Iran - they are inherent in the early commissioning phases of such a facility when it is not known in advance how it will perform in practice;
  • Iran has provided good cooperation on this matter and will be working to improve its future estimates."
    Despite the IAEA's candid reaction to the erroneous media spin on its latest report, the question of fair play and the need for the agency to stop playing politics with the Iran file continue to loom large. The same applies to respected nuclear scientists, such as David Albright who has expressed serious "surprise" at the IAEA's finding about the magnitude of enriched uranium in Iran (which is not half as surprising and certainly not uncommon, according to Fleming's letter).
    Albright's exaggerated response, as well as the distorted spins seen in the New York Times, raise serious questions about the ability of the Obama administration to pull off anything meaningful from its diplomatic track with Iran, especially considering the constant bombarded of such Iran-phobic feedback.
    As long as the US media, experts and key players in the "administration of knowledge" about nuclear Iran continue to churn out alarmist reports it is doubtful that any meaningful change in the US's approach toward Iran will be forthcoming. Still, the IAEA's timely clarification gives some small hope that the brushfire of Iran's nuclear stand-off may be fading out - rather than spinning out of control.
    After all, the same IAEA report repeatedly confirms that there is no evidence of military diversion and that the environmental samplings at the enrichment facilities confirm Iran's declaration.
    As for the thorny issue of Iran's heavy-water reactor under construction in Arak - where Iran has unilaterally rewritten the scripts for IAEA inspections in reaction to the UN sanctions deemed "unjustified" - it is fairly certain that as part of a quid pro quo to normalize Iran's file, Tehran is willing to re-adopt those provisions of the subsidiary agreement with the IAEA that permit the latter's verification of design information.
    Iran is in the mood for compromise. This stance is reflected in the IAEA report that Iran has de-accelerated its enrichment-related activities as a gesture to the Obama administration. This important information should have had the upper spot in the Western media's stories on the IAEA report. Yet only the Washington Post saw fit to highlight this angle in the headline of one of its news articles on Iran.
    Hopefully, after learning of the IAEA's important clarification - which in essence exonerates Iran of any nuclear foul play - the rest of the Western media will follow suit.
    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 2009 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

    Sunday, February 22, 2009

    BBC NEWS | Middle East | Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

     

    Iran is defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium.

    Why is Iran defying the Security Council?

    Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power, but not to the much higher level needed for a nuclear weapon. It has to remain under inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself. It says it will not break its obligations under the NPT and will not use the technology to make a nuclear bomb.

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to international pressure: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he has said.

    So why is the Security Council ordering Iran to stop enrichment?

    The Council is concerned because the technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used to enrich the uranium to the higher level needed to produce a nuclear explosion.

    Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and certain other nuclear activities. The Council's order is obligatory and supersedes other rights.

    What precisely does the Security Council and the IAEA want Iran to do?

    It wants Iran to stop all enrichment activities, including the preparation of uranium ore, the installation of the centrifuges in which a gas from the ore is spun to separate the richer parts and the insertion of the gas into the centrifuges. It also has to suspend its work on heavy water projects, notably the construction of a heavy water reactor. Such a reactor could produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium for a nuclear device.

    The IAEA has also called on Iran to ratify and implement an additional protocol allowing more extensive inspections as a way of establishing confidence.

    What does the IAEA say?

    The IAEA has Iran's fuel enrichment plant under its surveillance and says in its latest report in February 2009 that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium, though the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says this is not at such a high rate as earlier. The IAEA also says that, following a detailed examination, it had found that Iran has accumulated more low-enriched uranium than had been thought - more than 1000 kilograms. This is regarded as enough basic material from which to make a nuclear device. However the uranium would have to be enriched further and the IAEA is watching. It says it has found no evidence that Iran has diverted material for weapons purposes.

    The IAEA also reports that Iran is not cooperating with its request for an answer to questions about possible studies on nuclear warheads carried out in the past.

    Incentives are being offered to Iran. What are these?

    A renewed offer was made in summer 2008 by the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany, known as the P5+1 (the permanent five on the Security Council plus Germany) or the E3+3 (the European three plus the three others from the Security Council). It builds on a previous offer of 2006 and says that if Iran suspends uranium enrichment, then talks can start about a long-term agreement.

    On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Iran would get help with developing nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them. It would also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions preventing it from buying new civilian aircraft and parts.

    What was Iran's reply?

    Iran said publicly that its position was unchanged, suggesting that it would not suspend enrichment, the condition set for any talks. President Ahmadinejad said the demand was "illegitimate".

    What about an interim negotiation known as the "freeze-freeze"?

    Under this idea, Iran would freeze its enrichment programme at the current level and the P5+1 would agree not to impose further sanctions for a limited period. The hope is that this would help substantive talks but the P5+1 insistence on the suspension of enrichment would still need to be dealt with.

    What sanctions were imposed on Iran in March 2008?

    Resolution 1803 extends asset restrictions and travel bans on more Iranian individuals said to be involved in nuclear work and on more Iranian companies. It bans the sale to Iran of so-called dual-use items - items which can have either a military or civilian purpose - as well as calling on governments to withdraw financial backing from companies trading with Iran, to inspect cargo going into and out of the country, and to monitor the activities of two Iranian banks.

    What sanctions were imposed earlier?

    Resolution 1737 was passed in December 2006. It mandates all UN member states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems".

    In March 2007, the Council passed resolution 1747. This seeks to tighten the squeeze on Iran's nuclear and missile programmes by preventing dealings with the state Bank Sepah and 28 named people and organisations, many connected to the elite Revolutionary Guard. Member states have been told to exercise restraint in and to report the travel of individuals connected to these programmes.

    Imports of arms from Iran are banned and member states are told to exercise restraint in selling major arms systems to Iran. Loans are supposed to be limited to humanitarian and development purposes.

    What about further sanctions?

    On 10 June 2008, the US and the EU announced at a summit in Slovenia that they were ready "to supplement (UN) sanctions with additional measures."

    On 23 June, the EU agreed to freeze assets of Iran's largest bank, Bank Melli, and to extend visa bans to more Iranians involved in nuclear and missile development.

    On 27 September 2008, the Security Council reaffirmed existing sanctions but did not impose new ones.

    What does the US intelligence assessment say about Iran?

    The National Intelligence Estimate plays down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assesses "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it.

    The NIE adds: "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." The assessment admits that Iran appears "less determined" to develop nuclear weapons than US intelligence had previously thought.

    It says that the earliest date by which Iran could make a nuclear weapon would be late 2009 but that this is "very unlikely".

    Does the report lessen the chances of an attack on Iran?

    It did for a time but more recently, talk has grown again, especially from Israel. President Bush still refuses to rule out any "option".

    And Israel has reportedly carried out a major air force exercise, seen as practice for a raid on Iran.

    Does everyone accept the NIE report?

    No. Israel does not. The Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on 12 February 2008 that Israel thought Iran was aiming to create "a capacity for non-conventional weapons."

    And in London on 5 March 2008, a senior British diplomat said: "Many of us were surprised by how emphatic the writers [of the NIE] were... I haven't seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven't resumed."

    Even the Director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, appeared to backtrack on 28 February 2008, in evidence to the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

    In this evidence, he said that Iran had probably halted warhead design and weaponisation, but pointed out that Iran's continued enrichment of uranium meant that it was continuing with "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production." He said: "We remain concerned about Iran's intentions... Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."

    What other pressure has there been on Iran?

    While the sanctions were being negotiated, the US was also applying pressure on its international partners to restrict their trade with Iran. The US has banned most trade with Iran itself since its diplomats were seized in Tehran in 1979.

    On 17 October 2007, the US designated part of the Revolutionary Guard as a "supporter of terrorism" and the Guard as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction for its alleged work on ballistic missiles. The US imposed further sanctions on the Guards' commercial activities and on several Iranian banks.

    Is it not too late now to stop Iran from acquiring enrichment technology?

    Iran thinks so and has said so. Its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has called this a "great victory".

    According to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, events have overtaken the current strategy and he thinks that Iran should now be allowed to undertake limited enrichment but under strict supervision. This approach has been rejected by the US and its supporters.

    Doesn't the Non-Aligned Movement support Iran?

    The NAM, representing 120 nations, issued a statement in July 2008 supporting Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear power. Iran said this reflected international support for its position.

    The statement did not directly criticise UN sanctions against Iran, though it said that any issues should be dealt within the IAEA. It also appeared to accept that there are some problems remaining when it said: "Diplomacy and dialogue through peaceful means must continue to find a comprehensive and long-term solution to the Iranian nuclear issue."

    What is the background to this confrontation?

    The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then.

    Bushehr nuclear reactor

    Iran says its nuclear regime is peaceful

    Western members of the IAEA called on Iran to commit itself to stopping all enrichment activities permanently, but it has refused to do so and later abandoned a temporary halt as well.

    The clash with Iran escalated in February 2006, when the IAEA as a whole reported Iran to the Security Council.

    A month later, the Security Council decided to take up the issue after receiving a copy of an IAEA report on Iran which said that it could not "conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran".

    Could Iran leave the NPT?

    Yes. Article X gives a member state the right to declare that "extraordinary events" have "jeopardised the supreme interests of the state". It can then give three months notice to quit. That would leave it free to do what it wanted.

    And, in fact, on 7 May, its parliament threatened to force the government to withdraw if the stand-off was not resolved "peacefully".

    Don't existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?

    Article VI commits them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing their warheads, but critics say they have not really moved towards nuclear disarmament.

    Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not affected by the NPT.

    Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?

    Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.

    BBC NEWS | Middle East | Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

    Saturday, February 14, 2009

    NIAC - National Iranian American Council - Are Our Carrots Big Enough?

     

    Written by Sahar Jooshani

    Friday, 06 February 2009

    Image Washington DC - “Iran is not a donkey, bigger sticks won’t work,” said James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation. He made it clear Wednesday that Iran is not a country that can be wooed using the carrot or stick metaphor. Dobbins was joined by Kenneth M. Pollack and Danielle Pletka in a conference hosted by American Enterprise Institute and moderated by Jackson Diehl. The panel was visibly divided with the conservative voice of Pletka on one end and the more moderate opinions of Dobbins and Pollack on the other.

    Daniella Pletka was quick to communicate her uncertainty of how successful future talks with Iran would play out. The overarching theme of her discussion was best expressed in her opening comment, “Can we offer carrots that are big enough?” Her main concern was rooted in the US government’s ability to offer big enough incentives to please the Iranian appetite.

    The upcoming administration faces many obstacles in the Middle East. Pletka raised many concerns about the willingness of the American government to allow Iran to have a prominent role in regional affairs, a step that could prove to be a major factor in negotiations. In reference to the Palestinian issue, she stated, “Iran wants a dominant role in the region. Are we willing to see Iran at the table?”

    If the US is to engage Iran, it must define its boundaries and designate areas on which it is and is not willing to budge. Kenneth M. Pollock, the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution stated, “We need to recognize what they want from us. There is a right way to go about this.” He went on to state that the US should be prepared to put everything on the table, knowing beforehand that Iran “might not take it.”

    On a more optimistic note, James Dobbins, used a period of communication between the US and the Soviet Union to support his confidence in the importance of dialogue as a key tool in future relations between the US and Iran. Dobbins stated, “Talk, but don’t expect a lot in the short term and don’t threaten to bomb if you don’t get what you want.” He spoke at length about diplomatic strategies and tools, and made sure to restate that “threatening preemption” was not included in his list of successful diplomatic bargaining wagers.

    The conference concluded with a panel confident in the necessity of organized and guided dialogue. If the US is looking to open conversation with Iran, it should first decide what it can and cannot live without, because as Pletka stated, “Iran knows what it wants and the government thinks it has the upper hand.”

    NIAC - National Iranian American Council - Are Our Carrots Big Enough?

    This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House | | AlterNet

    A who's who guide to the people poised to shape Obama's foreign policy.

    U.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts will be fruit of a tree with many roots. Among them: his personal politics and views, the disastrous realities his administration will inherit, and, of course, unpredictable future crises. But the best immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, it is not looking good.

    Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of President Bill Clinton's White House. Although Obama brought some progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s. This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join Obama's team.

    "What happened to all this talk about change?" a member of the Clinton foreign policy team recently asked the Washington Post. "This isn't lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."

    Amid the euphoria over Obama's election and the end of the Bush era, it is critical to recall what 1990s U.S. foreign policy actually looked like. Bill Clinton's  boiled down to a one-two punch from the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of U.S. militarism. Clinton took office and almost immediately bombed Iraq (ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged plot by Saddam Hussein to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush). He presided over a ruthless regime of economic sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and under the guise of the so-called No-Fly Zones in northern and southern Iraq, authorized the longest sustained U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam.

    Under Clinton, Yugoslavia was bombed and dismantled as part of what Noam Chomsky described as the "New Military Humanism." Sudan and Afghanistan were attacked, Haiti was destabilized and "free trade" deals like the North America Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade radically escalated the spread of corporate-dominated globalization that hurt U.S. workers and devastated developing countries. Clinton accelerated the militarization of the so-called War on Drugs in Central and Latin America and supported privatization of U.S. military operations, giving lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other war contractors. Meanwhile, U.S. weapons sales to countries like Turkey and Indonesia aided genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the East Timorese.

    The prospect of Obama's foreign policy being, at least in part, an extension of the Clinton Doctrine is real. Even more disturbing, several of the individuals at the center of Obama's transition and emerging foreign policy teams were top players in creating and implementing foreign policies that would pave the way for projects eventually carried out under the Bush/Cheney administration. With their assistance, Obama has already charted out several hawkish stances. Among them:

    -- His plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan;

    -- An Iraq plan that could turn into a downsized and rebranded occupation that keeps U.S. forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future;

    -- His labeling of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization;"

    -- His pledge to use unilateral force inside of Pakistan to defend U.S. interests;

    -- His position, presented before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem "must remain undivided" -- a remark that infuriated Palestinian officials and which he later attempted to reframe;

    -- His plan to continue the War on Drugs, a backdoor U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in Central and Latin America;

    -- His refusal to "rule out" using Blackwater and other armed private forces in U.S. war zones, despite previously introducing legislation to regulate these companies and bring them under U.S. law.

    Obama did not arrive at these positions in a vacuum. They were carefully crafted in consultation with his foreign policy team. While the verdict is still out on a few people, many members of his inner foreign policy circle -- including some who have received or are bound to receive Cabinet posts -- supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some promoted the myth that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. A few have worked with the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, whose radical agenda was adopted by the Bush/Cheney administration. And most have proven track records of supporting or implementing militaristic, offensive U.S. foreign policy. "After a masterful campaign, Barack Obama seems headed toward some fateful mistakes as he assembles his administration by heeding the advice of Washington's Democratic insider community, a collective group that represents little 'change you can believe in,'" notes veteran journalist Robert Parry, the former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter who broke many of the stories in the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s.

    As news breaks and speculation abounds about cabinet appointments, here are 20 people to watch as Obama builds the team who will shape U.S. foreign policy for at least four years:

    Joe Biden

    There was no stronger sign that Obama's foreign policy would follow the hawkish tradition of the Democratic foreign policy establishment than his selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. Much has been written on Biden's tenure as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq stands out. Biden is not just one more Democratic lawmaker who now calls his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq "mistaken;" Biden was actually an important facilitator of the war.

    In the summer of 2002, when the United States was "debating" a potential attack on Iraq, Biden presided over hearings whose ostensible purpose was to weigh all existing options. But instead of calling on experts whose testimony could challenge the case for war -- Iraq's alleged WMD possession and its supposed ties to al-Qaida -- Biden's hearings treated the invasion as a foregone conclusion. His refusal to call on two individuals in particular ensured that testimony that could have proven invaluable to an actual debate was never heard: Former Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Hans von Sponeck, a 32-year veteran diplomat and the former head of the U.N.'s Iraq program.

    Both men say they made it clear to Biden's office that they were ready and willing to testify; Ritter knew more about the dismantling of Iraq's WMD program than perhaps any other U.S. citizen and would have been in prime position to debunk the misinformation and outright lies being peddled by the White House. Meanwhile, von Sponeck had just returned from Iraq, where he had observed Ansar al Islam rebels in the north of Iraq -- the so-called al-Qaida connection -- and could have testified that, rather than colluding with Saddam's regime, they were in a battle against it. Moreover, he would have pointed out that they were operating in the U.S.-enforced safe haven of Iraqi Kurdistan. "Evidence of al-Qaida/lraq collaboration does not exist, neither in the training of operatives nor in support to Ansar-al-Islam," von Sponeck wrote in an Op-Ed published shortly before the July 2002 hearings. "The U.S. Department of Defense and the CIA know perfectly well that today's Iraq poses no threat to anyone in the region, let alone in the United States. To argue otherwise is dishonest."

    With both men barred from testifying, rather than eliciting an array of informed opinions, Biden's committee whitewashed Bush's lies and helped lead the country to war. Biden himself promoted the administration's false claims that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, declaring on the Senate floor, "[Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons."

    With the war underway, Biden was then the genius who passionately promoted the ridiculous plan to partition Iraq into three areas based on religion and ethnicity, attempting to Balkanize one of the strongest Arab states in the world.

    "He's a part of the old Democratic establishment," says retired Army Col. Ann Wright, the State Department diplomat who reopened the U.S. embassy in Kabul in 2002. Biden, she says, has "had a long history with foreign affairs, [but] it's not the type of foreign affairs that I want."

    Rahm Emanuel

    Obama's appointment of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is a clear sign that Clinton-era neoliberal hawks will be well-represented at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. A former senior Clinton advisor, Emanuel is a hard-line supporter of Israel's "targeted assassination" policy and actually volunteered to work with the Israeli Army during the 1991 Gulf War. He is close to the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council and was the only member of the Illinois Democratic delegation in the Congress to vote for the invasion of Iraq. Unlike many of his colleagues, Emanuel still defends his vote. As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, Emanuel promoted the campaigns of 22 candidates, only one of who supported a swift withdrawal from Iraq, and denied crucial Party funding to anti-war candidates. "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we will have a position," he said in December 2005. As Philip Giraldi recently pointed out on Antiwar.com, Emanuel "advocates increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 100,000 soldiers and creating a domestic spying organization like Britain's MI5. More recently, he has supported mandatory paramilitary national service for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25."

    While Obama has at times been critical of Clinton-era free trade agreements, Emanuel was one of the key people in the Clinton White House who brokered the successful passage of NAFTA.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    For all the buzz and speculation about the possibility that Sen. Clinton may be named Secretary of State, most media coverage has focused on her rivalry with Obama during the primary, along with the prospect of her husband having to face the intense personal, financial and political vetting process required to secure a job in the new administration. But the question of how Clinton would lead the operations at Foggy Bottom calls for scrutiny of her positions vis-a-vis Obama's stated foreign-policy goals.

    Clinton was an ardent defender of her husband's economic and military war against Iraq throughout the 1990s, including the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which ultimately laid the path for President George W. Bush's invasion. Later, as a U.S. senator, she not only voted to authorize the war, but aided the Bush administration's propaganda campaign in the lead-up to the invasion. "Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program," Clinton said when rising to support the measure in October 2002. "He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members … I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the president's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction."

    "The man who vowed to deliver us from 28 years of Bushes and Clintons has been stocking up on Clintonites," New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently wrote. "How, one may ask, can he put Hillary -- who voted to authorize the Iraq war without even reading the intelligence assessment -- in charge of patching up a foreign policy and a world riven by that war?"

    Beyond Iraq, Clinton shocked many and sparked official protests by Tehran at the United Nations when asked during the presidential campaign what she would do as president if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," she declared. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

    Clinton has not shied away from supporting offensive foreign policy tactics in the past. Recalling her husband's weighing the decision of whether to attack Yugoslavia, she said in 1999, "I urged him to bomb. … You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?"

    Madeleine Albright

    While Obama's house is flush with Clintonian officials like former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Defense Secretary William Perry, Director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning Greg Craig (who was officially named Obama's White House Counsel) and Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, perhaps most influential is Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's former Secretary of State and U.N. ambassador. Albright recently served as a proxy for Obama, representing him at the G-20 summit earlier this month. Whether or not she is awarded an official role in the administration, Albright will be a major force in shaping Obama's foreign policy.

    "It will take time to convince skeptics that the promotion of democracy is not a mask for imperialism or a recipe for the kind of chaos we have seen in the Persian Gulf," Albright recently wrote. "And it will take time to establish the right identity for America in a world that has grown suspicious of all who claim a monopoly on virtue and that has become reluctant to follow the lead of any one country."

    Albright should know. She was one of the key architects in the dismantling of Yugoslavia during the 1990s. In the lead-up to the 1999 "Kosovo war," she oversaw the U.S. attempt to coerce the Yugoslav government to deny its own sovereignty in return for not being bombed. Albright demanded that the Yugoslav government sign a document that would have been unacceptable to any sovereign nation. Known as the Rambouillet Accord, it included a provision that would have guaranteed U.S. and NATO forces "free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout" all of Yugoslavia -- not just Kosovo -- while also seeking to immunize those occupation forces "from any form of arrest, investigation or detention by the authorities in [Yugoslavia]." Moreover, it would have granted the occupiers "the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment." Similar to Bush's Iraq plan years later, the Rambouillet Accord mandated that the economy of Kosovo "shall function in accordance with free-market principles."

    When Yugoslavia refused to sign the document, Albright and others in the Clinton administration unleashed the 78-day NATO bombing of Serbia, which targeted civilian infrastructure. (Prior to the attack, Albright said the U.S. government felt "the Serbs need a little bombing.") She and the Clinton administration also supported the rise to power in Kosovo of a terrorist mafia that carried out its own ethnic-cleansing campaign against the province's minorities.

    Perhaps Albright's most notorious moment came with her enthusiastic support of the economic war against the civilian population of Iraq. When confronted by Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” that the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of "a half-million children … more children than died in Hiroshima," Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." (While defending the policy, Albright later called her choice of words "a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong.")

    Richard Holbrooke

    Like Albright, Holbrooke will have major sway over U.S. policy, whether or not he gets an official job. A career diplomat since the Vietnam War, Holbrooke's most recent government post was as President Clinton's ambassador to the U.N. Among the many violent policies he helped implement and enforce was the U.S.-backed Indonesian genocide in East Timor. Holbrooke was an Assistant Secretary of State in the late 1970s at the height of the slaughter and was the point man on East Timor for the Carter Administration.

    According to Brad Simpson, director of the Indonesia and East Timor Documentation Project at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, "It was Holbrooke and Zbigniew Brzezinski [another top Obama advisor], both now leading lights in the Democratic Party, who played point in trying to frustrate the efforts of congressional human-rights activists to try and condition or stop U.S. military assistance to Indonesia, and in fact accelerated the flow of weapons to Indonesia at the height of the genocide."

    Holbrooke, too, was a major player in the dismantling of Yugoslavia and praised the bombing of Serb Television, which killed 16 media workers, as a significant victory. (The man who ordered that bombing, now-retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, is another Obama foreign policy insider who could end up in his cabinet. While Clark is known for being relatively progressive on social issues, as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, he ordered bombings and attacks that Amnesty International labeled war crimes.)

    Like many in Obama's foreign policy circle, Holbrooke also supported the Iraq war. In early 2003, shortly after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN, where he presented the administration's fraud-laden case for war to the UN (a speech Powell has since called a "blot" on his reputation), Holbrooke said: "It was a masterful job of diplomacy by Colin Powell and his colleagues, and it does not require a second vote to go to war. … Saddam is the most dangerous government leader in the world today, he poses a threat to the region, he could pose a larger threat if he got weapons of mass destruction deployed, and we have a legitimate right to take action."

    Dennis Ross

    Middle East envoy for both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross was one of the primary authors of Obama's aforementioned speech before AIPAC this summer. He cut his teeth working under famed neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon in the 1970s and worked closely with the Project for the New American Century. Ross has been a staunch supporter of Israel and has fanned the flames for a more hostile stance toward Iran. As the lead U.S. negotiator between Israel and numerous Arab nations under Clinton, Ross' team acted, in the words of one U.S. official who worked under him, as "Israel's lawyer."

    "The 'no surprises' policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking," wrote U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller in 2005. "If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel." After the Clinton White House, Ross worked for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish pro-Israel think tank, and for FOX News, where he repeatedly pressed for war against Iraq.

    Martin Indyk

    Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Indyk spent years working for AIPAC and served as Clinton's ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, while also playing a major role in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran. In addition to his work for the U.S. government, he has worked for the Israeli government and with PNAC.

    "Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner by appealing to the most hard-line, pro-Israel elements in this country," Ali Abunimah, founder of ElectronicInifada.net, recently told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, describing Indyk and Dennis Ross as "two of the most pro-Israel officials from the Clinton era, who are totally distrusted by Palestinians and others across the Middle East, because they're seen as lifelong advocates for Israeli positions."

    Anthony Lake

    Clinton's former National Security Advisor was an early supporter of Obama and one of the few top Clintonites to initially back the president-elect. Lake began his foreign policy work in the U.S. Foreign Service during Vietnam, working with Henry Kissinger on the "September Group," a secret team tasked with developing a military strategy to deliver a "savage, decisive blow against North Vietnam."

    Decades later, after working for various administrations, Lake "was the main force behind the U.S. invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years," according to veteran journalist Allan Nairn, whose groundbreaking reporting revealed U.S. support for Haitian death squads in the 1990s. "They brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians, and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti." Clinton nominated Lake as CIA Director, but he failed to win Senate confirmation.

    Lee Hamilton

    Hamilton is a former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was co-chairman of both the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission. Robert Parry, who has covered Hamilton's career extensively, recently ran a piece on Consortium News that characterized him this way: "Whenever the Republicans have a touchy national-security scandal to put to rest, their favorite Democratic investigator is Lee Hamilton. … Hamilton's carefully honed skill for balancing truth against political comity has elevated him to the status of a Washington Wise Man."

    Susan Rice

    Former Assistant Secretary of Sate Susan Rice, who served on Bill Clinton's National Security Council, is a potential candidate for the post of ambassador to the U.N. or as a deputy national security advisor. She, too, promoted the myth that Saddam had WMDs. "It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat," she said in 2002. "It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on." (After the invasion, discussing Saddam's alleged possession of WMDs, she said, "I don't think many informed people doubted that.")

    Rice has also been a passionate advocate for a U.S. military attack against Sudan over the Darfur crisis. In an op-ed co-authored with Anthony Lake, she wrote, "The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing."

    John Brennan

    A longtime CIA official and former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Brennan is one of the coordinators of Obama's intelligence transition team and a top contender for either CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence. He was also recently described by Glenn Greenwald as "an ardent supporter of torture and one of the most emphatic advocates of FISA expansions and telecom immunity." While claiming to oppose waterboarding, labeling it "inconsistent with American values" and "something that should be prohibited," Brennan has simultaneously praised the results achieved by "enhanced interrogation" techniques. "There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hard-core terrorists," Brennan said in a 2007 interview. "It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the death of 3,000 innocents."

    Brennan has described the CIA's extraordinary rendition program -- the government-run kidnap-and-torture program enacted under Clinton -- as an absolutely vital tool. "I have been intimately familiar now over the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. Government has been involved in," he said in a December 2005 interview. "And I can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives."

    Brennan is currently the head of Analysis Corporation, a private intelligence company that was recently implicated in the breach of Obama and Sen. John McCain's passport records. He is also the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA), a trade association of private intelligence contractors who have dramatically increased their role in sensitive U.S. national security operations. (Current Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is former chairman of the INSA.)

    Jami Miscik

    Miscik, who works alongside Brennan on Obama's transitional team, was the CIA's Deputy Director for Intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. She was one of the key officials responsible for sidelining intel that contradicted the official line on WMD, while promoting intel that backed it up.

    "When the administration insisted on an intelligence assessment of Saddam Hussein's relationship to al-Qaida, Miscik blocked the skeptics (who were later vindicated) within the CIA's Mideast analytical directorate and instructed the less-skeptical counterterrorism analysts to 'stretch to the maximum the evidence you had,' " journalist Spencer Ackerman recently wrote in the Washington Independent. "It's hard to think of a more egregious case of sacrificing sound intelligence analysis in order to accommodate the strategic fantasies of an administration. … The idea that Miscik is helping staff Obama's top intelligence picks is most certainly not change we can believe in." What's more, she went on to a lucrative post as the Global Head of Sovereign Risk for the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers.

    John Kerry and Bill Richardson

    Both Sen. Kerry and Gov. Richardson have been identified as possible contenders for Secretary of State. While neither is likely to be as hawkish as Hillary Clinton, both have taken pro-war positions. Kerry promoted the WMD lie and voted to invade Iraq. "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try?" Kerry asked on the Senate floor in October 2002. "According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons … Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents."

    Richardson, whose Iraq plan during his 2008 presidential campaign was more progressive and far-reaching than Obama's, served as Bill Clinton's ambassador to the UN. In this capacity, he supported Clinton's December 1998 bombing of Baghdad and the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq. "We think this man is a threat to the international community, and he threatens a lot of the neighbors in his region and future generations there with anthrax and VX," Richardson told an interviewer in February 1998.

    While Clinton's Secretary of Energy, Richardson publicly named Wen Ho Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, as a target in an espionage investigation. Lee was accused of passing nuclear secrets to the Chinese government. Lee was later cleared of those charges and won a settlement against the U.S. government.

    Robert Gates

    Washington consensus is that Obama will likely keep Robert Gates, George W. Bush's Defense Secretary, as his own Secretary of Defense. While Gates has occasionally proved to be a stark contrast to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he would hardly represent a break from the policies of the Bush administration. Quite the opposite; according to the Washington Post, in the interest of a "smooth transition," Gates "has ordered hundreds of political appointees at the Pentagon canvassed to see whether they wish to stay on in the new administration, has streamlined policy briefings and has set up suites for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team just down the hall from his own E-ring office." The Post reports that Gates could stay on for a brief period and then be replaced by Richard Danzig, who was Clinton's Secretary of the Navy. Other names currently being tossed around are Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (a critic of the Iraq occupation) and Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, who served alongside Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    Ivo H. Daalder

    Daalder was National Security Council Director for European Affairs under President Clinton. Like other Obama advisors, he has worked with the Project for the New American Century and signed a 2005 letter from PNAC to Congressional leaders, calling for an increase in U.S. ground troops in Iraq and beyond.

    Sarah Sewall

    Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance during the Clinton administration, Sewall served as a top advisor to Obama during the campaign and is almost certain to be selected for a post in his administration. In 2007, Sewall worked with the U.S. military and Army Gen. David Petraeus, writing the introduction to the University of Chicago edition of the Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual. She was criticized for this collaboration by Tom Hayden, who wrote, "the Petraeus plan draws intellectual legitimacy from Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, whose director, Sarah Sewall, proudly embraces an 'unprecedented collaboration [as] a human rights center partnered with the armed forces.'”

    "Humanitarians often avoid wading into the conduct of war for fear of becoming complicit in its purpose," she wrote in the introduction. "'The field manual requires engagement precisely from those who fear that its words lack meaning."

    Michele Flournoy

    Flournoy and former Clinton Deputy Defense Secretary John White are co-heading Obama's defense transition team. Flournoy was a senior Clinton appointee at the Pentagon. She currently runs the Center for a New American Security, a center-right think-tank. There is speculation that Obama could eventually name her as the first woman to serve as defense secretary. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported: "While at CNAS, Flournoy helped to write a report that called for reducing the open-ended American military commitment in Iraq and replacing it with a policy of 'conditional engagement' there. Significantly, the paper rejected the idea of withdrawing troops according to the sort of a fixed timeline that Obama espoused during the presidential campaign. Obama has in recent weeks signaled that he was willing to shelve the idea, bringing him more in line with Flournoy's thinking." Flournoy has also worked with the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

    Wendy Sherman and Tom Donilon

    Currently employed at Madeline Albright's consulting firm, the Albright Group, Sherman worked under Albright at the State Department, coordinating U.S. policy on North Korea. She is now coordinating the State Department transition team for Obama. Tom Donilon, her co-coordinator, was Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Chief of Staff at the State Department under Clinton. Interestingly, Sherman and Donilon both have ties to Fannie Mae that didn't make it onto their official bios on Obama's change.gov website. "Donilon was Fannie's general counsel and executive vice president for law and policy from 1999 until the spring of 2005, a period during which the company was rocked by accounting problems," reports the Wall Street Journal.

    ***

    While many of the figures at the center of Obama's foreign policy team are well-known, two of its most important members have never held national elected office or a high-profile government position. While they cannot be characterized as Clinton-era hawks, it will be important to watch Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, co-coordinators of the Obama foreign policy team. From 2000 to 2005, McDonough served as foreign policy advisor to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and worked extensively on the use-of-force authorizations for the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which Daschle supported. From 1996 to 1999, McDonough was a professional staff member of the House International Relations Committee during the debate over the bombing of Yugoslavia. More recently, he was at the Center for American Progress working under John Podesta, Clinton's former chief of staff and the current head of the Obama transition.

    Mark Lippert is a close personal friend of Obama's. He has worked for Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Democratic Policy Committee. He is a lieutenant in the Navy Reserve and spent a year in Iraq working intelligence for the Navy SEALs. "According to those who've worked closely with Lippert," Robert Dreyfuss recently wrote in The Nation, "he is a conservative, cautious centrist who often pulled Obama to the right on Iraq, Iran and the Middle East and who has been a consistent advocate for increased military spending. 'Even before Obama announced for the presidency, Lippert wanted Obama to be seen as tough on Iran,' says a lobbyist who's worked the Iran issue on Capitol Hill, 'He's clearly more hawkish than the senator.' "

    ***

    Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to bring change to Washington. "I don't want to just end the war," he said early this year. "I want to end the mindset that got us into war." That is going to be very difficult if Obama employs a foreign policy team that was central to creating that mindset, before and during the presidency of George W. Bush.

    "Twenty-three senators and 133 House members who voted against the war -- and countless other notable individuals who spoke out against it and the dubious claims leading to war -- are apparently not even being considered for these crucial positions," observes Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy. This includes dozens of former military and intelligence officials who spoke out forcefully against the war and continue to oppose militaristic policy, as well as credible national security experts who have articulated their visions for a foreign policy based on justice.

    Obama does have a chance to change the mindset that got us into war. More significantly, he has a popular mandate to forcefully challenge the militaristic, hawkish tradition of modern U.S. foreign policy. But that work would begin by bringing on board people who would challenge this tradition, not those who have been complicit in creating it and are bound to continue advancing it.

    Digg!

    See more stories tagged with: iraq, afghanistan, robert gates, barack obama, hillary clinton, bill clinton, rahm emanuel, joe biden, madeleine albright, richard holbrooke, dennis ross, anthony lake, martin indyk, susan rice, john brennan, jami miscik, sarah sewall, lee hamilton, yugoslavia

    Jeremy Scahill pledges to be the same journalist under an Obama administration that he was during Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidencies. He is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and is a frequent contributor to The Nation and Democracy Now! He is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.

    This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House | | AlterNet

    Tuesday, February 10, 2009

    Is Iran's space programme more advanced than thought? - space - 09 February 2009 - New Scientist

     

    Iran's first satellite launch aboard a home-grown rocket last week has left observers puzzled over just how it was done. Was the satellite launched by a feeble rocket pushed to its limits, or has Iran's secretive space programme managed to develop a far more powerful launch vehicle without anyone noticing? The answer will affect how soon the country might achieve its stated goal of sending humans into space.

    Iran launched its satellite – called Omid, or "Hope" – on 2 February. According to Iranian media, it is a 40-centimetre cube weighing 25-kilograms, and is equipped with radio transmitters.

    Foreign tracking stations and amateur sky watchers have been following the craft's relatively low orbit, which is expected to decay over weeks or months due to atmospheric drag.

    At first, it was thought that the launch vehicle, called Safir-2, was derived from relatively feeble missiles that burn ambient-temperature liquid fuel, which Iran was already known to have.

    Two of these missiles stacked one on top of the other could boost a third, small, solid-fuel rocket that could take a lightweight payload like Omid to orbit.

    Two stages

    But evidence has begun to emerge that the rocket might be more powerful than this. Amateur observers report that the last stage of the rocket, which is also in orbit, is much brighter than the satellite itself, suggesting it is too large to be the third stage of a relatively modest rocket.

    Geoffrey Forden of MIT, who specialises in the analysis of foreign countries' launch capabilities, is one of those now mulling over whether the rocket had just two stages, with a second stage that was much more powerful than anything Iran was known to possess. This would be possible using a cryogenic fuel system involving liquid oxygen.

    If true, this would have important implications for Iran's ambition to launch astronauts into space, something Reza Taghipour, head of Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization, has said the country hopes to do before 2021.

    Suborbital flights

    "If they used three stages, there's no way they're going to be getting a man to space anytime soon," Forden says. "If it's two stages, then maybe they could have suborbital flights fairly soon."

    Ongoing tracking of the final stage's orbit should help to provide an answer. That's because the speed of the object's drop due to atmospheric drag will provide clues as to its size.

    Either way, the launch has heightened concern among those nations that suspect Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

    Military concerns

    A rocket that can put a few dozen kilograms in orbit can also deliver a few hundred kilograms – the mass of a nuclear warhead – as far as western Europe. Iran says its satellite launch was for peaceful purposes.

    "It would be very difficult for the spacefaring nations to say that Iran doesn't have a sovereign right for space launch capabilities," says Joan Johnson-Freese of the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

    "They have a very legitimate reason for wanting to be able to launch their own satellites for both economic and prestige reasons, but it also gives them an additional military capability," she told New Scientist. "The dual-use aspect really puts you in a dilemma."

    If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

    Is Iran's space programme more advanced than thought? - space - 09 February 2009 - New Scientist

    Tuesday, February 3, 2009

    Op-Ed Contributor - Talk to Iran. Then What? - NYTimes.com

     

    THE presidential campaign failed to address the hard choices America must make to contain the Iranian nuclear threat. By focusing almost exclusively on tactics, the election obscured the questions that really matter: What should the United States demand when it finally talks to Iran? And when Iran rejects our opening position, how much should we compromise to come to a deal?

    The opening act, after all, is entirely predictable. The Obama administration will likely begin negotiations by insisting that Iran suspend its efforts to enrich uranium. Compliance with this requirement — imposed by the United Nations Security Council in July 2006 and reiterated several times since — has been the goal of the European-led negotiations with Iran that President Obama faulted the Bush administration for not joining. Iran has consistently rejected the demands of the United Nations and our European allies, however, and it would be naïve to expect a different answer just because the United States is at the negotiating table. Iran will almost certainly say no, presumably calculating that it can eventually force the world to accept its enrichment program.

    So what then? After a few unsuccessful meetings, experts both in and outside of government will increasingly express doubts about the American position. They will ask: Aren’t we demanding too much? Perhaps it was reasonable to call for suspension in 2006 when Iran had 164 centrifuges spinning, but is it reasonable now that Iran claims to have more than 5,000 in operation, and more on the way? Some will argue that time is on Iran’s side: As we negotiate, Iranians will continue to install more centrifuges. So shouldn’t we cut the best deal we can now, even if it allows Iran to continue enriching?

    The critics will propose fallback positions like allowing enrichment, but under enhanced international safeguards that supposedly can detect the development of nuclear weapons. Perhaps they will propose strict limits on the amount of uranium that Iran can enrich. Or, as suggested last year by the retired diplomat Thomas Pickering and his co-writers William Luers and Jim Walsh: allowing enrichment, but only on the condition that Iran converts its national enrichment efforts into a multinational program that is owned and operated by a consortium of countries.

    The problem is that other countries in the region could demand the same treatment. Such is the lesson of the Bush administration’s decision to abandon its opposition to Iran’s construction of a nuclear power reactor at Bushehr. This eliminated the option of opposing civil nuclear power elsewhere in the Middle East. How could we explain to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for example, that we trust Iran to have civil nuclear power reactors, but not them?

    The same principle applies to enrichment. Once we accept enrichment in Iran, it will become impossible to deny the same arrangement to friendly governments in the region, let alone unfriendly ones like Syria. The result will be the proliferation of dangerous nuclear technologies that we have been seeking to avoid.

    The risks will be even greater if we agree to convert Natanz into an international enrichment center. International partners will not invest in a primitive enrichment operation that relies on old and unproven technologies. They will insist on state of the art enrichment equipment, Western management and access to export markets — the absence of which has hindered Iran’s enrichment progress up to now. By contrast, so long as Iran’s nuclear enrichment program remains illegitimate and subject to international censure, it cannot serve as an attractive model for other countries.

    For these reasons, the United States cannot be more eager than Tehran to reach a deal, and Mr. Obama must persuade Iran that he can afford to see negotiations fail. Of course, he will have to do so amid the high expectations that he has created by calling for direct, unconditional engagement with Tehran. This may turn out to be the new president’s greatest diplomatic challenge.

    Stephen Rademaker was an assistant secretary of state responsible for arms control and nonproliferation from 2002 to 2006.

    Op-Ed Contributor - Talk to Iran. Then What? - NYTimes.com

    Sunday, February 1, 2009

    Israeli Envoy: Attack on Gaza a ‘Preintroduction’ to Attack on Iran | News From Antiwar.com

     

    After ordering a cameraman to turn off his camera, Israeli Ambassador to Australia Yuval Rotem engaged in a very frank discussion about the recent Israeli war in the Gaza Strip, calling it “a preintroduction” to an attack on Iran that Israel apparently expects within the year.

    Before the camera was turned off, Ambassador Rotem said “the best thing to do is to have a very open dialogue if there are no reporters or journalists here,” adding “I am far more reserved in the way I am saying my things (on camera).” Unbeknownst to him however Sarah Cummings, a reporter for Australia’s Seven News service, was actually in attendance at the meeting after having been “accidentally” invited.

    Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran

    Israeli Envoy: Attack on Gaza a ‘Preintroduction’ to Attack on Iran | News From Antiwar.com