The Agonist - Iran

Turkey pulls out of deal to buy Iranian gas under pressure from US

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 02:08:39 -0700

Robert Tait | Istanbul | August 15

The Guardian - Turkey delivered a humiliating snub to Iran's visiting president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, yesterday by backing out of a lucrative energy deal under pressure from the US government, which feared it would enhance Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Signing the £1.87bn agreement to provide Turkey with Iranian natural gas - on which memoranda of understanding had already been agreed - was to have been the crowning achievement of Ahmadinejad's two-day visit to Istanbul, which Turkish officials had agreed to after intense Iranian lobbying. Iran is Turkey's second-biggest energy supplier after Russia and has been seeking to woo Turkish investment in its South Pars gas fields.

But as Ahmadinejad met his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gül, at Ciragan Palace in Istanbul, it emerged that US intervention had effectively torpedoed a deal.

Iran Escalates Military Rhetoric

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:09:39 -0700

Nazila Fathi | Tehran | August 5

NYT - Iran warned Monday that it could easily close a critical Persian Gulf waterway for oil shipments and claimed possession of a new long-range naval weapon that could sink enemy ships nearly 200 miles away.

It was unclear what provoked the warning, made by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, but it followed the weekend expiration of an informal deadline for Iran to respond to incentives from world powers to curb its uranium enrichment activities. The United States, which has warships deployed in the Persian Gulf, has said new sanctions should be imposed on Iran for failing to respond to the deadline.

The Iranian warning coincided with word that Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, spoke by phone on Monday with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. Mr. Solana was expected to report back on the conversation to the representatives of the six countries — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — that are leading the demands that Iran stop enriching uranium, Agence France-Presse reported.

In comments carried by the semiofficial Iranian news agency Fars, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said that Iran was capable of imposing “unlimited controls” at the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, an important international oil route.

“Closing the Strait of Hormuz for an unlimited period of time would be very easy,” he was quoted as saying.

MEK

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:33:47 -0700

Scott Ritter | Truthdig

The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization’s activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat, or intelligence service. The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given “protected status” under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses “refugee camps” inside Iraq as its bases.

The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency’s acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran’s ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.

US sets weekend deadline for Iran in nuclear showdown

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:55:15 -0700

Washington | Aug 2

AFP - The United States on Friday set a weekend deadline for Iran to answer an international offer to freeze its nuclear drive and warned of new sanctions if it rejects the package.

However, its European Union partners in the drive to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program stopped short of insisting on a strict deadline and said a reply within a few days would suffice.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Thursday that there was no deadline and that his country had already replied.

The US State Department had been vague about the deadline but narrowed it down on Friday.

"We want and we expect a response this weekend," the State Department's acting spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told reporters. "They were given two weeks. The two weeks is up this weekend."

Conspiracy Theories

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:40:41 -0700

The media, TV journalists in particular, continue to leave some important questions lying dormant beneath the dusty cover of “conspiracy theory.” Why did W decide to invade Iraq while 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia? Why is Saudi Arabia a cradle for such terrorists?

Years ago, when W still had some credibility, he and his Roving gang could ridicule anyone who spoke against his actions. Whenever brave souls dared to question the Divine Decider, he and his cronies dismissed the dissenters as nutcase conspiracy theorists. And they continue to do so even after the Iraq War has officially run its miserable course to disastrous guerrilla warfare and our economy whimpers.

Iran plans mass execution

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:52:16 -0700

July 26

AFP - Iran is planning a mass execution of 30 people convicted of murder and drug trafficking, in the biggest such event in recent years, a local newspaper reported on Saturday.

It would be the largest mass execution in the Islamic republic in recent years.

It said 20 of those on death row were convicted drug traffickers.

The remaining 10, identified as "murderer thugs" were also convicted of "disturbing public security and disorder, beating up people, repeated robberies, having illegal relationships and showing up drunk in public."

Political Parties, Corporations and the Truth

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:06:55 -0700

In this article I am going to make an attempt to clarify my views on this presidential race, U.S. foreign policy, the economy and what we are experiencing in this new era as far as our civil liberties, the constant threats (real and perceived) to our “security” and the increasing gap between the rich and the not so rich in this country. One could write a book about each of these subjects, putting everything in one article is a daunting task. I’m not an expert nor am I an economist, diplomat or a military genius. What I am attempting to do is separate fact from fiction as I see it. I’m sure that many will take exception to what I have to say and that’s understandable, we all can’t be mirror images of each other. I ask your indulgence beforehand.

New alliances form in Asia

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:00:12 -0700

Hannes Artens | Washington | July 22

Foreign Policy in Focus - As usual, Agonistas knew first:

Iran Isolation Attempts Backfire

Iran's provocative missile tests ten days ago again fueled the debate on the likelihood of aerial strikes against Iran. Since last week's thaw, however, an attack on Iran by the end of President Bush's tenure no longer appears in the offing. Moreover, the narrow, exclusively military focus of the debate misses the broader picture. The overall U.S. strategy of containing Iran has failed in principle. And the attempt to impose a sanctions regime on Iran has led to an erosion of U.S. strategic influence in Asia and the Middle East. Over the long term, Washington's shortsighted containment policy will only hurt Western business in the region. It will also play into the hands of China, drive crucial allies away, and render Iran untouchable.

At the eleventh hour, even the Bush administration seems to have realized, albeit in a limited way, the inherent failure of the containment approach. In an important about-face, the White House not only agreed to direct talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in Geneva this weekend but also held out the prospect of soon opening an American interest section in Tehran. This sea change suggests that the realists around Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates having finally gained the upper hand over the faction around Vice President Dick Cheney in the intra-administration feud. The reversal also acknowledges that the dual approach of sanctions and military threats have produced nothing but America's own isolation. The far-reaching repercussions of these counterproductive sanctions against Iran and America's increasing isolation in Asia are best illustrated by this month's breakthrough on the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.

Read on at Foreign Policy in Focus or at Common Dreams

Ecuador looks to Iran and China in new oil refinery

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0700

Quito | July 20

AFP - China and Iran are interested in investing in a six-billion-dollar oil refinery Ecuador is building with Venezuelan help on the Pacific coast, President Rafael Correa said Saturday.

"That refinery is being built with (Venezuela's state giant) PDVSA although Iran and China also are interested," the Ecuadoran leader said in his weekly television address.

Correa said Iran could be involved and shrugged off any concern that might cause.

"Somebody may say: Iran, Axis of Evil. But what do I care what other countries think? We have to be masters of our own destiny. We have nothing against Iran. Iran has done nothing to us," Correa said.

Burns A Spoiler?

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:00:16 -0700

Several bloggers have taken to the meme that Richard Burns is to play the role of spoiler in Europe's negotiations with Iran. I think they are wrong. The example to point to is what Chris Nelson mentions in regards to our negotiations with North Korea:

Will Burns be allowed to talk directly with the Iranians? Not officially...State and the White House today sounded very much like the restrictions initially put on lead N. Korea negotiator Chris Hill, that he couldn't meet bilaterally with his DPRK counterpart, had to have others in the room when he did, etc.

(There was a press rumor Burns would make a "surprise" follow-on visit to Teheran, but our sources say "highly unlikely at this time.")

But Burns, like Hill, is a pro with the requisite intestinel fortitude, so on balance the decision to allow him to participate within the European delegation...especially when paired with permission for State to establish an "interest section" in the Swiss Embassy in Teheran...is the first serious ray of light to shine on US-Iran dialogue in a long time.

They may be right. But I don't think so and I'd trust Chris Nelson on this any day. There has been a lot of behind the scenes talk going on for quite some time, talks that have flown way under the radar for obvious domestic political reasons. And now, as I commented elsewhere, "we might actually see this as a first, very small, tentative step in the right direction."

Of course there is the blindingly obvious: what's happening now is much, much better than the sabre rattling that was going on this time last year. Was it Churchill who said, "jaw-jaw is better than war-war"?

I would (cynically) note that the oil argument does have some merit and they might just be bying time for a McCain win, but still, these are extremely lengths to go in order to do so.

Iran: Engagement, Finally

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:51:08 -0700

Like Hannes, I am simply blown away by this news. I really don't know what to say, the turnabout is so huge, so significant. It's almost a Nixon-goes-to-China moment. (For reasons of realpolitik I doubt it, however, as Bush just isn't as shrewd a statesman as Nixon, for all his other faults, was.) The fact that this administration, which only a few months ago seemed to be ready to bomb the Iranians back to the stone-age is now not only not denying the news coming out of Tehran about an interests section but discussing it publicly, especially in the context of 'people-to-people' exchanges a la ping-pong diplomacy is stunning. Really, I know there are a lot of emphatic words here, almost superlatives, but it's a shocking turnabout. And one I, in particular, am thrilled to see happening.

I know Iranians and have friends who live there. I've visited the place, as you all know. As I have said, time and time again, engagement with the odious regime in Tehran is the key to its downfall, not 'regime change' by force. I made the argument time and time and time again on the radio with Jack Riccardi and Chris Duel and Col. Ken Allard. The key, I would always say is "to engage the regime like we did the Soviets get them to put there money where their mouths are, in a sense. Engagement will bring about the downfall or moderation of the regime once they feel less threatened." This occurred with the Soviets and my bet is, if this can be pulled off and there is still a lot of doubt, that the same can happen with the Mullah regime in Tehran. I feel tremendously vindicated, just as I did when the Bush Administration finally talked with the North Koreans. While serious and substantive issues remain, it appears as if full and verifiable inspections will be a reality in Pyongyang. Of course, they (and right-wingers in general) argued I was wrong. But that's by the by now.

It's simply the most unadulterated good news to come out of this administration ever. Dare I say they've done something right?

Lastly, Obama (and Edwards even more so for calling the War on Terror the fraud it truly is) is to be applauded by having the courage to call for negotiations with the 'baddies' and thus open up this key, critical domestic space. Were it not for Edwards and Obama I doubt we'd be where we are.

If things continue in this fashion the war in Iraq might even be over much sooner than we think and in a fashion many of us could scarcely have dreamed possible.

Much remains to be done, but for some reason imagination and courage seem to have temporarily triumphed over narrow ideology.

Now it's definite: No attack on Iran

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:55:35 -0700

By Hannes Artens

There has been endless jabber in the blogsphere about a possible October surprise, an attack on Iran to strengthen John McCain's bid for the White House. After last week's Iranian missile tests in response to an earlier Israeli air force exercise that included in-flight re-fueling operations, the media was abuzz with speculations about Israel possibly going it alone. Now it's definite, almost official: there won't be an attack on Iran during the remainder of President Bush's tenure.

What evidence I have to make such a claim? None. What crucial factors I can cite to base my take on? Three.

First, yesterday evening, The Guardian revealed that the Bush White House is to announce next month the opening of an US interests section in Tehran, thus re-establishing direct diplomatic relations with Iran after almost thirty years.

Second, at Saturday's talks in Geneva between the EU-3 and Iran, the US will be represented by Undersecretary of State, William Burns. For the first time US and Iranian negotiators will officially meet one-on-one to discuss the latter's nuclear enrichment.

Third, according to Anthony Cordesman, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen was sent to Israel ten days ago to tell Tel Aviv quite frankly that the U.S. would neither approve nor green-light an Israeli solo run.

Vote for this article at Buzzflash and at Digg

Nelson On Iran

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:11:55 -0700

Chris Nelson on Iran:

SUMMARY: a potentially historic sea change between the US and Iran is only just starting to play out, but the past 24 hours may be a gift from the political gods for Obama's long-standing argument with McCain, about dealings with Iran and other baddies.

If so, it won't be easy, of course. With the President signing-off on US diplomatic participation with the Euros, agreeing to send Amb. Burns to Geneva, Supreme Leader Khamenei says he wants to negotiate, but won't agree (in advance?) to shutting down any part of the nuclear program.

I can only add that we've advocated something similar here at The Agonist for a long, long time. Jeez, are people finally listening to us? More below.

Don't Expect the Democrats to Stop an Attack on Iran

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:30:48 -0700

It’s very early in the morning and I’m here writing about the possibility of my country attacking another nation in the Middle East for no real reason except to put some capitalistic fears to rest. The major reason that the United States desires to attack Iran isn’t because they believe that they will build an atomic weapon, it is the fear that Iran will switch from the dollar and embrace the Euro which will send our currency into free fall and bring about a possible recession or depression in this country as our dollar becomes worthless.

Make no mistake about why wars are fought. The central reason is almost always about resources, markets or threats to an economy. The rhetoric that precedes a war is usually never about the real reasons a nation desires to attack another. The reasons for war are veiled in talk about freedom or principles, but warring nations usually have neither. This nation, built on a system of values called capitalism or a market economy is always ready to use its armed forces as a means to force their economic needs on other nations.

President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:41:55 -0700

Uzi Mahnaimi | Washington | July 13

Times Online UK - President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.