Thread: Iran News and Editorials

The Iranian official also emphasized that the Islamic Republic will accept no preconditions for the resumption of talks with the six major powers.

Could have saved time by simply writing "fuck off" back in October.

Is there any rationale behind the bits you've highlighted in yellow here, or were you just trying to make it look pretty?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Lots of unattributed "comments" few named quotes

I am glad that you appreciate my "highlights", however the comment above may help with your comprehension of my posting.

Don't get me wrong, I'll emphasise a paragraph or sentence to highlight it, but I don't really see a pattern to what you've highlighed here, and frankly there are so many of them it defeats the object.

Asia Times Online :: US, Iran inching toward talks

"The foreplay is nearing completion on the Iran situation. The surest sign is that there were no serious takers in Western capitals for the Israeli smear campaign this week that Tehran's agents had been going about placing bombs in New Delhi, Tbilisi and Bangkok. Simply put, there is growing impatience that it is way past the time for histrionics.

Several indicators are available that matters are moving towards a substantive plane. One cluster of events this week consists of the Iranian reply to the letter from the European Union foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, penned by Tehran's chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili. Simultaneously, Tehran announced it was developing a new generation of centrifuges and augmenting its number of centrifuges from 6,000 to 9,000 as well as loading a research reactor with Iran's first batch of domestically produced fuel.

While Tehran's announcement of new nuclear "achievements" might have appeared as a belligerent move - Washington derided it as "hype" meant for the domestic audience in Iran - the contents of Jalili's letter, and, more important, the initial responses of cautious optimism it generated within hours in Western capitals convey that there are positive stirrings in the air.
The reaction in Washington is particularly noteworthy. A White House official was quoted as saying, "It [Jalili's letter] could lead to further diplomacy, provided that they [Iranians] are serious about it. We have made clear that this has to be a dialogue about their nuclear program specifically."

Jalili's letter apparently said Tehran would have "new initiatives" and indicated Iran's openness to discussing the nuclear issue. It suggested that "[A] constructive and positive attitude toward the Islamic Republic of Iran's new initiatives in this round of talks could open a positive perspective for our negotiation".

Jalili concluded, "Therefore ... I propose to resume out talks in order to take fundamental steps for sustainable cooperation in the earliest possibility in a mutually agreed venue and time." Significantly, neither Ashton nor Jalili raised any pre-conditions for the talks. Quite obviously, Brussels has already begun consultations with Washington on setting the date and venue for the resumption of talks between the "Iran Six" and Iran after a gap of three years. The "Iran Six" - also known as the "P5+1", includes the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the US, France, China, Russia, Britain - plus Germany.

A second cluster of positive signs is the virtual toning down of rhetoric on both sides. The most significant contribution to an easing of tensions came from senior American intelligence officials in the course of a US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday - within a day of receiving Jalili's letter. It is interesting that the hearing itself came on the heels of a bipartisan draft resolution being mooted by 32 senators "ruling out a strategy of containment for a nuclear-armed Iran".

James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, assessed that as of now, Tehran has not decided whether to build a nuclear weapon, although it has been acquiring some skills. He doubted whether Iran would really take the plunge, either:
We [US] believe that the decision would be made by the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] himself and he would base that decision on a cost-benefit analysis. I don't think he'd want a nuclear weapon at any price, so that I think plays to the value of sanctions. They are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision, but there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time.

Conceivably, Clapper was also acknowledging Washington's appreciation of the self-restraint Tehran has been showing in not optimally pursing its nuclear program. In parallel testimony, the director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, added that "Iran today has the technical, scientific and industrial capability to eventually produce nuclear weapons" and notwithstanding the international pressure through sanctions "we assess that Tehran is not close to agreeing to abandon its nuclear program".

Putting both testimonies together, the Barack Obama administration has unambiguously indicated that the time is most opportune to engage Tehran in talks. Both Clapper and Burgess downplayed the prospect of Iran posing security threats to the US or to the Strait of Hormuz.

A fascinating aspect of the testimony was that the US officials virtually admitted that Tehran was on the whole being reactive rather than being provocative or belligerent in ratcheting up tensions. Burgess went to the extent of saying Iran could be expected to respond if attacked, but that in the US estimation it was unlikely to start any military conflict on its own.

Clapper went a step further, directly linking any shifts in Tehran's peaceful nuclear program to an eventuality where "the [Iranian] regime feels threatened in terms of its stability and tenure". Clapper also agreed with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that at any rate, producing a bomb "would probably take them [Iranians] about a year, and then possibly another one or two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort".

Clapper added, "It's technically feasible [making a bomb] but practically not likely. There are all kinds of combinations and permutations that would affect how long it might take, should the Iranians make a decision to pursue a nuclear weapon." In sum, Clapper poured cold water on the Israeli scenario of "apocalypse now". (He also repeated that Israel was not planning to attack Iran.)

On the whole, these testimonies must be seen as a comprehensive assurance being held out to Tehran that there are, after all, enough folks in Washington who haven't lost their sanity through all these months of shadow-boxing and grandstanding in the US-Iran standoff.

Alongside, in a third cluster, Tehran, too, has resorted to a bit of public diplomacy to project its interest in constructively engaging the US. Prominent among these have been three articles penned by Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who held a key position in Iran's nuclear negotiating team until six years ago (besides serving as Iran's ambassador to Germany for seven years.)

His opening article was featured in the influential US magazine Foreign Affairs. Mousavian looked back at the US-Iran standoff on the nuclear issue over the past eight years as a chronicle of wasted time, of missed opportunities and misunderstandings and mutual misconceptions feeding on each other with both sides resorting to miscalculations that ultimately didn't help matters, leave alone end the stalemate.

He placed the blame squarely on successive US administrations for not having cared to explore repeated Iranian overtures for a normalization of relations.

His refrain throughout has been that the nuclear issue should never have been regarded as a "stand-alone" question that could be dealt with separately from the larger issues of the confrontational relationship that the two countries have had since the 1979 Iranian revolution.

As he put it, "There won't be a solution to the nuclear dispute as long as officials in Tehran and Washington continue to base their relationship on escalating hostility, threats and mistrust, particularly if the ultimate US goal is regime change." (By an interesting coincidence, this was also the grain of what Panetta and Clapper said this week.)

In his latest and concluding third part, Mousavian suggested the "bottom lines" in the upcoming negotiations: "For Iran, this means the ability to produce reliable civilian energy, as it is entitled to do under [nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty. For the US and Europe, it means never having Iran develop nuclear weapons or a short-notice breakout capability."

How are the expectations of the two sides to be harmonized? Mousavian has the following to say:

Specifically, the West should recognize the legitimate right of Iran to produce nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment; remove sanctions; and normalize Iran's nuclear file at the UN Security Council and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]. To meet the P5+1 conditions, Iran should accept the maximum level of transparency by implementing the IAEA's Subsidiary Arrangement Code 3.1 and the Non-Proliferation Treaty's Additional Protocol, which broadly enable intrusive monitoring and inspections of nuclear facilities.

To eliminate Western concerns about a possible nuclear weapons breakout using low-enriched uranium, any deal should place a limit on Iran's enrichment activities to less than 5 percent ... A deal should also cap the amount of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride that Iran can stockpile; limit its enrichment sites during a period of confidence building; establish an international consortium on enrichment in Iran; and commit not to reprocess low-enriched uranium during the confidence-building period.

The "Mousavian suggestion" is somewhat modeled on Russia's "step-by-step" plan that also includes full supervision by the IAEA; implementation of the Additional Protocol and Subsidiary Arrangement between the IAEA and Iran; limiting enrichment sites to one; and temporary suspension of enrichment.

Moscow proposed that in return, Iran would expect the "Iran Six" to remove sanctions and normalize Iran's nuclear file in the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council.

To what extent Mousavian's opinions reflect the thinking within the Iranian regime is hard to tell and indeed he is conscious that the "domestic political climate in both countries" has come in the way of meaningful negotiations between Washington and Tehran in the past.

But what is striking is that the testimonies by Clapper and Burgess are in broad harmony with what Mousavian has suggested as the way forward. "

Some good points in a suggestion for "normalisation" of Iran's world position worth the interested parties discussing in this article.

The surest sign is that there were no serious takers in Western capitals for the Israeli smear campaign this week that Tehran's agents had been going about placing bombs in New Delhi, Tbilisi and Bangkok.

I don't think there's any smear campaign, it's stating the bloody obvious.

What there is though is probably a lot of irritation with Israel for starting it with their own agents bombing Tehran.

U.S., EU optimistic about renewed talks with Iran - Xinhua | English.news.cn

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- The United States and the European Union (EU) on Friday saw positive signs in Iran's stated willingness to reopen talks over its controversial nuclear program.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the reply letter sent by Iran to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton "an important step".

"As outlined in Cathy's October letter to Iran, any conversation with Iran has to begin with a discussion of its nuclear program and Iran's response to Cathy's letter does appear to acknowledge and accept that," the top U.S. envoy told reporters after meeting Ashton at the State Department.

Iran's letter, sent by its chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Tuesday in response to Ashton's October letter offering to resume talks on condition that the Islamic republic sets no preconditions, said it is ready for renewed negotiations with the six powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia, the U.S. and Germany.

Clinton demanded Iran's assurances for a "sustained effort" in reaching an outcome once the six powers go ahead with the talks.

However, she added that "I think it's fair to say -- of course I'll let Cathy speak for herself -- that we think that this is an important step and we welcome the letter."

For her part, Ashton said she was "cautious and optimistic" about the prospect of resumed talks with Iran. She sent her letter to Iran on behalf of the six powers, whose last talks with the country broke down in Istanbul, Turkey in January 2011.

"There is a potential possibility that Iran may be ready to start talks. We'll continue to discuss and make sure that what we' re looking at is substantive," she said, adding "But I'm cautious and optimistic at the same time for this."

Iran is suspected of seeking nuclear bombs under its nuclear program, but the country counters that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purpose.

Washington and the EU have targeted Iran's central bank and oil exports for sanctions in their continuous efforts to press the country to stop its uranium enrichment activities."

A positive response to the Iranian letter at last.

It's good to see Hilly and Cathy on such intimate terms, or was it a ham-fisted attempt at a put down to the tea girl?

Suspected by some political leaders.

Totally legal under the global institution rules.

Again, there seems no rationale to your use of yellow.

What are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Again, there seems no rationale to your use of yellow.

What are you trying to say?

1. The use of "Cathy" by the Secretary of State it shows a certain lack of manners.

2. "Iran is suspected" continuing the same old accusations with no proof.

3. "to stop its uranium enrichment activities" all countries, whoever they may be, are entitled to undertake an enrichment programme, run and organised by themselves. To go to war, any use of financial weapons is regarded as an act of war by many countries including the EU and US. If Iran is subjected to this type of warfare other countries disobeying UNSC and UNGA resolutions should equally be facing the same.

Or do the "rules" only apply to "them" and not "us"?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

How quickly everyone forgets the media froth and jerk-off of just a few years ago. This is a build up of Israel and their bought-and-paid-for American pols and bureaucrats preparing the ground work for a move against Iran - just as surely as the Arab Spring was an engineered Zionist Winter implemented by Uncle Sam-berg.

Why do Israel want to emasculate Iran?

There was an interesting discussion this morning to the effect that, if Iran do get nukes and can only reach Israel and Saudi, but not New York, London or Paris, should NATO get involved?

Of course the answer is yes, because without oil the world economy is down the shitter.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

2. Iran IS suspected. There is no proof because they refuse to co-operate with the IAEA and answer questions about their program. Have you not grasped this yet?

3. Pointless asking them to stop it, if they are concealing it, hence the sanctions and threats from Israel.

When the same standards of "proof" are demanded for all other participants then it would be acceptable, until then it is not.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

2. Iran IS suspected. There is no proof because they refuse to co-operate with the IAEA and answer questions about their program. Have you not grasped this yet?

3. Pointless asking them to stop it, if they are concealing it, hence the sanctions and threats from Israel.

When the same standards of "proof" are demanded for all other participants then it would be acceptable, until then it is not.

If you can name other nations that have concealed nuclear programmes and sponsor terrorism then I'd like to hear it.

My knowledge of the holders of nuclear weapons is limited. The 5 admitted members, UK, France, US, Russia and China. An acknowledged suspect is Israel, who do not admit it but also do not deny it. Other EU countries house nuclear weapons and as such should be included in the list of "holders".

All the above "may have concealed nuclear programmes" and undeniably sponsor "terrorism".

Iran is "suspected" of a nuclear weapons programme, but not proven, and is "suspected" of having sponsored terrorism, but not proven.

When the acknowledged holders are subject to the same level of required proof, then you may have a point. Until then it's just bullying, which is against the UN charter.

Originally Posted by OhOh

My knowledge of the holders of nuclear weapons is limited. The 5 admitted members, UK, France, US, Russia and China. An acknowledged suspect is Israel, who do not admit it but also do not deny it. Other EU countries house nuclear weapons and as such should be included in the list of "holders".

All the above "may have concealed nuclear programmes" and undeniably sponsor "terrorism".

Iran is "suspected" of a nuclear weapons programme, but not proven, and is "suspected" of having sponsored terrorism, but not proven.

When the acknowledged holders are subject to the same level of required proof, then you may have a point. Until then it's just bullying, which is against the UN charter.

Obviously you didn't hear about the IRANIANS caught making terrorist bombs in a certain Asian capital last week then.

And obviously you haven't heard of HEZBOLLAH, which is a Lebanese based organisation.

Ooooh, who's this? And who's he kissing?

I find some of these arguments so elemental to be just too funny. H&K - If you're paying these midgets more than 10 cents per post then you're as stoopid as they are - or you are just ripping off your paymasters.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

I find some of these arguments so elemental to be just too funny.

That would require you to understand them.

Fars News Agency :: Iranian Oil Minister Issues Ultimatum to EU Members

"TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi called on the European countries to make a final decision on oil imports from Iran, warning that they will be sanctioned by Tehran otherwise.

Iran has recently imposed a ban on oil exports to Britain and France as the main two states which pushed the EU to sanction oil imports from Iran.

Tehran's Sunday decision to cut oil supplies to Britain and France came after the EU member states decided to impose a ban on Iranian oil, but said that they would put their decision into effect after six months in a bid to find a replacement for Iranian energy supplies.

On Tuesday, Qassemi underlined that Tehran has the initiative and would take a relevant decision on the future of crude exports to the EU states if they do not guarantee long-term imports from Iran.

"We make decisions in our own country and we have sanctioned hostile states; if other (European) countries do not specify their decision about long-term oil contracts (with Iran), Tehran will make a decision about them as well," Qassemi told reporters here in Tehran on Tuesday.

Asked about Iran's next move vis-à-vis the western sanctions against the Islamic Republic, the oil minister reiterated, "There is not problem for selling Iranian oil in the international market and we have good customers and friends in this market."

After months of debates, the EU member states reached an agreement in their meeting on January 23 to sanction oil imports from Iran and freeze the assets of Iran's Central Bank within the EU.

Following the move, Tehran summoned the ambassadors of Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Portugal and the Netherlands to protest at the EU's unilateral sanctions against Tehran over its peaceful nuclear program, and warned them that it would soon stop oil exports to these countries if they do not reverse their decision.

Later in January, the Iranian oil ministry in a statement downplayed the effects of the US and EU's unilateral oil sanctions against Tehran, and said such embargoes would merely harm the European economies and oil consuming countries.

European sanctions against Iran's oil exports will affect the world economy and hurt the European and non-European countries, the statement said.

"The hurried decision by the EU states to use oil as a political tool will have a negative impact on the world economy and specially on the recovering European economies which are fighting to overcome the global financial crisis," it added.

The statement continued that since just 18 percent of oil produced by Iran is exported to European countries, the Islamic Republic can easily replace new markets with the European market.

Several European refineries have gone bankrupt and shut down business after Tehran announced in January that it would soon cut supplies to those EU member states which would sign into the new sanctions against Iranian oil.

Also following Iran's move to cut oil sales to British and French firms, the price of Brent crude hit an eight-month high in Asian markets, reaching $123.10 per barrel.

The price of Brent North Sea crude for April delivery climbed by $3.52, media reports said on Monday. "

The oil price increase has been the net result of these acts of war against Iran by the crusader coalition. Saudi Arabia's export of "replacement" oil has failed to materialise and any loss of customers is being subsidised by the increased price per barrel.

The result of this act has been to hurt customers of Iran as opposed to Iran itself.

European governments couldn't care less if they started a war and the price of oil would go to 200 USD, forcing a new recession and possibly a depression

all they want is to secure oil for the future so they can get their bonus when they retire from political life,

hopefully Sarko will be kicked out of his presidency in May

Russia, who supplies most of mainland Europe with oil and gas is just counting the Roubles.

Asia Times Online :: Do the Iran shuffle

"Iran is the new Nazi Germany, Mahmud Ahmadinejad the new Hitler. And as the world wavers and blinks in the face of such evil, the tyrannical menace grows increasingly emboldened.

Or so goes the prevailing narrative of the "Iranian threat." Of course, the main champion of this line is none other than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who personally fancies casting Iran as no less than an "existential threat" to the state of Israel. In fact, in addressing the US Congress last May, Netanyahu thundered to rousing applause (one of 29 such standing ovations) that a nuclear Iran was the "greatest danger facing humanity."

Of little surprise then, that as the tensions between the West and Iran reach crisis level, scarcely a story in the corporate media on the Iranian nuclear program appears without referencing the "existential threat" to Israel. For per the "existential threat" refrain, if Iran's nuclear program cannot soon be stopped - or "taken out" - Iran will proceed to develop the bomb and place Israel firmly within its crosshairs. Indeed, a rather ominous scenario seemingly necessitating a swift response, perhaps even military confrontation.

Yet, despite the predominance of Western politicians and pundits couching their lusting for war in notions of a noble defense of Israel, many prominent Israelis dispute the now popularized conception of the so-called "Iranian threat."

For instance, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that current Mossad chief Tamir Pardo told an audience of Israeli ambassadors in late December that even if Iran where to acquire a nuclear bomb, it "wouldn't necessarily constitute a threat to Israel's continued existence." Pardo went on to lament, "The term existential threat is used too freely."

Speaking back in 2007, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was likewise reported by Haaretz to have said, "Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel." And former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy and former Israeli military chief of staff Dan Halutz have also both shared similar sentiments. With Halutz arguing, "I don't think there's room for any doomsday scenarios or comparisons with the Holocaust."

All the aforementioned, it should be noted, are hardly what one would consider doves.

Still, such statements should elicit little surprise. For in the end, Iran indeed poses no such threat - even if it were to develop nuclear weapons, which both US and Israeli intelligence agencies maintain Iran is not currently pursuing. After all, the seemingly unspeakable truth regularly omitted from Western discussions of the "Iranian threat" is that Israel is itself a nuclear power. And as such, Israel possesses a formidable nuclear deterrent, with an estimated arsenal of some 200 nuclear warheads. (Israel neither confirms nor denies the existence of its nuclear program, and refuses international inspections.)

Given this, a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran would be nothing less than suicidal. And no indication exists that the Iranian government is in anyway indifferent to its own survival. As Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak even admitted back 2010: "I don't think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, (would) drop it in the neighborhood. They fully understand what might follow. They are radical but not totally crazy. They have a quite sophisticated decision-making process, and they understand reality."

So, if Iran isn't suicidal, and the threat then not existential, what is the nature of the so-called threat?

Speaking back in December, Danielle Pletka of the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute revealed the true nature of the "Iranian threat." As Pletka explained:

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a bomb and testing it. It's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say ‘see, we told you Iran was a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately. We told you Iran wasn't seeking regional influence or regional hegemony through its acquisition of nuclear weapons,' and they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem. [1]

In other words, it is not the survival of Israel that is feared, but rather US-Israeli military supremacy in the greater Middle East. It is the potential challenge to Israel's monopoly on nuclear arms in the region, along with the exertion of Iranian national sovereignty, which constitute the real threat from Iran.

The "existential threat" card is thus merely posited to shroud the joint US-Israeli imperial project. Needless to say, it also serves the additional benefit of browbeating any anti-imperialist critic, least one be tarred anti-Semitic. No doubt a rather shameful, albeit stale, ploy.

Of course, the great irony is that any Israeli attempt to quash the perceived, or concocted, existential threat from Iran promises to only expose Israel to great peril. For responding militarily to the purely illusory threat from Iran will only subject Israel to retaliatory attacks on multiple fronts. And it is really such inevitable blowback that presents the ultimate danger.

The true threat to Israel, then, lies not in Tehran, but in the leadership empowered in Jerusalem. "

Good old Sondhi, eh? He's a bigger nutter than that Voltaire bloke. Wasn't he the one who said Thaksin was using black magic?