As’ad is very critical of Ethan Bronner, the Deputy Foreign Editor of the New York Times who has also been serving as its Jerusalem bureau chief for the past couple of years. Ethan Bronner was one of the first (and only) ones in the MSM (main stream media) who, from his desk in New York in 2006, actually did try to look into what Ahmadinejad did actually say, on an earlier similar occasion. (Ahmadinejad is consistent, at least).

Ahmadinejad, who was formerly Mayor of Tehran, and a populist in style, with strong ties to the groups which are the pillars of the Islamic revolution which overthrew the Shah in Iran in February 1979, was elected president in August 2005.

Bronner wrote, in the NYT in June 2006, that “EVER since he [Ahmadinejad] spoke at an anti-Zionism conference in Tehran last October, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has been known for one statement above all. As translated by news agencies at the time, it was that Israel ’should be wiped off the map’. Iran’s nuclear program and sponsorship of militant Muslim groups are rarely mentioned without reference to the infamous map remark. Here, for example, is R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, recently: ‘Given the radical nature of Iran under Ahmadinejad and its stated wish to wipe Israel off the map of the world, it is entirely unconvincing that we could or should live with a nuclear Iran’. But is that what Mr. Ahmadinejad said? And if so, was it a threat of war? For months, a debate among Iran specialists over both questions has been intensifying. It starts as a dispute over translating Persian but quickly turns on whether the United States (with help from Israel) is doing to Iran what some believe it did to Iraq — building a case for military action predicated on a faulty premise. ‘Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian’” remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. ‘He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse’.”

Bronner, in the NYTimes, then cites other sources to deal with the WIPE OFF part of the phrase in translation: “Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, recently laid out the case this way: ‘The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran’s first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”, just as the Shah’s regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The “page of time” phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon’. Mr. Steele added that neither Khomeini nor Mr. Ahmadinejad suggested that Israel’s ‘vanishing’ was imminent or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about. ‘But the propaganda damage was done’, he wrote, ‘and Western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews’. If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation — Israel should be wiped off the map — is accurate. But translators in Tehran who work for the president’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say ‘wipe off’ or ‘wipe away’ is more accurate than ‘vanish’ because the Persian verb is active and transitive”.

After that, Bronner tackles the word MAP used in translating the phrase: “The second translation issue concerns the word ‘map’. Khomeini’s words were abstract: ‘Sahneh roozgar‘. Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as ‘map’, and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not ‘Sahneh roozgar‘ but ‘Safheh roozgar’, meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word ‘map’ again. Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: ‘It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word ‘map’ was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words ‘sahneh roozgar‘ are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as ‘book of countries,’ and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard ‘Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad‘ — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches’.

Bronner finally deals [again, this is in 2006] with what, or what specific place, Ahmadinejad is referring to: ‘The final translation issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s use of ‘occupying regime of Jerusalem’ rather than ‘Israel’.”

Here, there is a lot of: if Ahmadinejad said x, then he really means y.

Bronner wrote: “To some analysts, this means he is calling for regime change, not war, and therefore it need not be regarded as a call for military action … But to others, ‘occupying regime’ signals more than opposition to a certain government; the phrase indicates the depth of the Iranian president’s rejection of a Jewish state in the Middle East because he refuses even to utter the name Israel. He has said that the Palestinian issue ‘does not lend itself to a partial territorial solution’ and has called Israel ‘a stain’ on Islam that must be erased. By contrast, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, said that if the Palestinians accepted Israel’s existence, Iran would go along … [I]t is true that he [Ahmadinejad] has never specifically threatened war against Israel”.

Then, in what appears to be a contrary conclusion, Bronner ends this way: “So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question”… This Ethan Bronner analysis of Ahmadinejad’s words was published in the NYTimes here.

Juan Cole himself wrote, in a post on his Informed Comment blog dated 3 May 2006, that he was angry about misrepresentation of his views in an email to a closed discussion group in which he wrote: “Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope – that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’ with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a peoplee”. In the main body of his post, Cole argued: “Actually, I never said anything at all about Khomeini’s own speeches or intentions. I was solely discussing Ahmadinejad … But, by the way, Khomeini sold oil to Israel, and Israel sold him weapons and spare parts, and put the Reagan administration up to doing the same thing. You will note that when Khomeini originally made the statement about the occupation regime over Jerusalem vanishing from the page of time, that was not front page news. In fact, secret Israeli arms shipments were arriving in Tehran as Khomeini was speaking. So whatever is going on now is not about the rhetoric, is it? … Worrying about Ahmadinejad’s antics is like worrying that the US military will act on the orders of the secretary of the interior. Ahmadinejad cannot declare war on anyone, or mobilize a military. So it doesn’t matter what speeches he gives”. This is posted here.

A very detailed analysis of what Ahmadinejad said in 2005, done in January 2007 entirely by a Farsi-mother-tongue speaker, Arash Norouzi [co-founder of The Mossadegh Project, here], can be viewed on Global Research, here.

One part of the argumentation that Norouzi made [in 2007] is this:
“In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a ‘world without Zionism’. One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is. In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West’s apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the ‘Zionist regime’ was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world’s struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East. Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America’s powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini’s own words foretelling that individual regime’s demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini’s unfulfilled wish: ‘The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise’. This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war”…

And, not for a new genocide — or a new holocaust — either.

But, for those who still won’t accept this, and who insist that if Ahmadinejad said x, then he really meant y, there’s not much more to write…

UPDATE: The Israel Project has just reminded us that the Jewish Center for Policy Affairs (JCPA) has an analysis of Ahmadinejad’s remarks, which it argues are genocidal, published in 2008 and posted here. It relies on much of the same basic material, but adds remarks from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamene’i; from the leader of Lebanon’s Hizballah, Hassan Nasrallah; and photos of banners put up on the front of Revolutionary Guard offices and at the sites of rallies and on the sides of military busses. It also claims that Ahmadinejad has punctuated his speeches with the chant: Marg Bar Israeel, or Death to Israel. [Some readers will recall that one of the earliest and most popular slogans at demonstrations supporting the Islamic revolution was: Marg Bar Amrika, or Death to America…

Actually, he’s apparently been at Princeton for ten months already.

Mousavian was been Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami [who preceeded the present President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad], then later then deputy head of the Strategic Research Center of Iran’s Expediency Council.

The WSJ wrote that “In September, Mr. Mousavian, 53 years old, arrived at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs as a visiting scholar, where he has been writing on Tehran’s nuclear diplomacy and U.S.-Iranian relations. Neither Princeton nor the Obama administration would comment on the Iranian diplomat’s stay in the U.S., but American and European diplomats engaged in nuclear diplomacy with Iran say they are closely scrutinizing Mr. Mousavian’s work for insights into Tehran’s decision making”.

In the photo below, which was probably taken in 2003, Mousavian (on right side of photo) is seen talking to another Iranian diplomat Amir Zamaniniya (on left).

Mousavian, a former Ambassador of Iran to Germany, and to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was instrumental in what was — for those Iranian officials involved — a risky agreement to freeze Iran’s nuclear program in 2003 to allow for negotiations with European states, observed by the U.S. But it did not result in any diplomatic movement. There were American elections first. Then, in 2005, there were Iranian elections, and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad won — radically changing the Iranian political landscape.

The WSJ article continues: “Mr. Mousavian said in his first interview since arriving at Princeton that he wasn’t in the U.S. to rally support for Tehran’s political opposition, known as the Green Movement. He said he is focused on his academic work and recovering from an illness contracted during his imprisonment and subsequent legal battles. He said he intends to return to Tehran at some point. ‘I don’t need asylum from any country, and I would never apply for it’, he said” …

The WSJ article continued: “In addition to Mr. Mousavian, a slew of other senior Iranian bureaucrats, diplomats and opposition figures have either been sidelined or fled to the West since opposition protesters challenged Mr. Ahmadinejad’s re-election a year ago, resulting in a broad government crackdown. Javad Zarif, a pro-engagement former ambassador to the UN, is under virtual house arrest in Tehran, said Western officials. [n.b. - this may have been in effect well before the Green Movement protests] Top aides to Iran’s two leading opposition figures, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, have also been forced to set up political bases overseas … Individuals who have met Mr. Mousavian said he is deeply concerned by the developments inside Iran following last year’s presidential election, which many Iranians claimed was rigged to insure Mr. Ahmadinejad’s re-election, a charge Tehran denies.”

Here, again, the WSJ may be linking two different phenomena — Mr. Mousavian may, for example, be more immediately concerned about developments related to the country’s nuclear program and its implication for policy than with the democracy movement.

As far back as December 2007, one of Iran’s former President, Khatami, did lump Mousavian, Zarif, and Sirous Nasseri together with protesting students — actually, Khatami defended all of them, as we reported earlier here. However, the students were not necessarily working together with the former Iranian diplomats.

As the WSJ story reported: “Mr. Mousavian continues to press for the U.S. to engage Tehran in a bid to reduce regional tensions, according to writings viewed by The Wall Street Journal [papers that have been distributed inside Princeton] … He argues that any Iranian government, even one headed by opposition political leaders, would remain committed to developing the infrastructure to produce nuclear fuel. But he says improved trust between Washington and Tehran could still allow for necessary safeguards to be put in place to guard against Iran building atomic weapons … He also says the U.S. should develop with Tehran a broad security plan for the Persian Gulf that could prove crucial to securing the free flow of energy in and out of the strategic waterway … “Thirty years of hostilities between Tehran and Washington has only served to diminish the security in the region”, [he wrote]. Mr. Mousavian, in spite of his close ties to Mr. Rafsanjani, played down the prospects for any quick leadership change in Tehran and said a move toward democracy could only be stimulated from inside … “Iran is not in a pre-revolutionary state”, Mr. Mousavian writes”. This is posted here.

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad went after Mousavian with particular zeal, interfering to deepen his legal problems [opposing his release on bail in May 2007, and later saying he believed Mousavian was a "spy", despite the acquittal in court on most charges, as we reported here.

Mousavian was arrested in May 2007, released a couple of weeks later on bail, then rearrested and put on trial in November 2007, when he was acquitted on the most serious charges of "spying" and "holding confidential documents", but was apparently found guilty of "engaging in propaganda against the state". On 9 April 2008, Iran's National Nuclear Day, Mousavian was reportedly received a two-year suspended sentence -- and a five-year ban on being named to foreign policy or diplomatic positions, on the grounds that he had harmed national security.

Among our other earlier posts following Mr. Mousavian's ordeal are:

Posted on December 4th, 2007 - here.

Ahmadeinejad threatens to reveal Mousavian’s conversations with “foreigners”
Posted on November 29th, 2007 - here.

Mousavian aquitted of spying – but found guilty of working against system
Posted on November 27th, 2007 - here.

Mousavian rearrested
Posted on November 16th, 2007 - here.

Good news — Mousavian free on bail ($225,000)
Posted on May 9th, 2007 here.

Mousavian remains in Evin Prison, under interrogation for “spying”
Posted on May 6th, 2007 - here.

Hossein Mousavian reported under arrest in Iran
Posted on May 2nd, 2007 here.

Iran’s Dilemma
Posted on March 25th, 2007 - here.

UN Security Council unanimously votes to tighten sanctions against Iran — even before 3pm in NY
Posted on March 24th, 2007 - here.

In the photo below, Mousavian is second from left, participating in an panel discussion on 21 March 2007 at the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GSCP):

In his public statement at that meeting in Geneva, Dr. Mousavian said that "Iran's nuclear issue is unduly blown out of proportion and falsely presented as a proliferation challenge. The United States has tried hard to portray Iran's case as an international security crisis, and because of the power it wields at the international level, Chapter VII label, that is: threat to international peace and security, was placed on Iran's case in the Security Council". Instead, he said, "Iran's nuclear issue is one that needs to be resolved through persuasion, cooperation and engagement".

He said in the GCSP discussion that "When and if [the P] 5+1 gain Iran’ confidence, and negotiation would proceed in a mutually agreed direction, Iran should technically be able to demonstrate that it is under no time pressure to begin its commercial-scale enrichment for fabrication of nuclear fuel”.

European negotiators call the P5 [the five Permanent members of the UN Security Council ]+1 [Germany] the 3+3 [meaning 3 Europeans -- Britain, France, and Germany, and 3 others -- the. U.S., Russia, and China].

In a later interview, Mousavian explained that “This, for example can be an idea: If the negotiation can start with good faith in recognizing Iranian rights, and assuring Iran, then Iran can also show the signal of tolerance for time in order to reach commercial production, because Iran has enough time, and we can discuss with the partners, 5+1, to reach industrial scale in a phased approach”.

At the time, we wrote on this blog that “In March 2005, Iran apparently suggested to European negotiators that it might be willing to limit its number of cascaded centrifuges to 3000. But, in Geneva … Dr. Mousavian signalled that Iran intended to go ahead to reach industrial-scale production of (lightly) enriched uranium used to operate civilian nuclear power plants. One problem is that once mastered, the same process could simply be extended to produce the highly-enriched uranium used in the production of nuclear weapons, which is apparently the cause of much international concern. Asked about the doubts many have concerning the possibility of a future weapons program, Mousavian replied that ‘Iranians are only concerned about their rights, discrimination against Iran, and attempts to deprive Iran from their legitimate right. This is the basis for Iranian behavior’. Iran’s right, as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to the full nuclear fuel cycle must be recognized, Dr. Mousavian said. It should not be a question of who takes the first step, he added. ‘Iran should take one step, 5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) at the same time simultaneously should take one step: 5+1 should recognize the right of Iran for fuel cycle in the framework of NPT, the exercise of the right with no discrimination, compared to any other NPT member — this is the step from 5+1. And Iranian side I believe should be cooperative with the IAEA, for transparency, for confidence-building measures, in the framework of international rules and regulations — (but) not beyond. Therefore the two parties should take two steps simultaneously and together”. So far, he acknowledged, this proposal is not yet on the table”.

We also noted that “During the meeting at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, Dr. Mousavian got an earful of reproaches about Iran’s position, along with some suggestions intended to be helpful. The world’s problem with Iran’s nuclear program, said Dr. Patricia Lewis of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), addressing Dr. Mousavian in the discussion, “could be likened to a wife discovering that her husband had been less than honest with her about his time and activities, and that he has perhaps indeed been out with a number of different women. ‘It could all be perfectly innocent’ Dr. Lewis said, ‘But, believe me, Ambassador, it would take more than chocolates and flowers to make up to a wife who is feeling that way’.  Dr. Lewis said that Iran’s case highlighted some of the most difficult issues that must now be dealt with under the NPT: ‘the issue of intent, and the issue of peaceful purposes, and how do we ascertain purpose, and intent, in the international system’, she said. ‘This has really been the crux of the matter vis-a-vis Iran. It was indeed the crux of the matter vis-a-vis Iraq. And, indeed, because of the lack of faith in the intent and purposes that were discovered as a result of what happened in ‘91 — the discovery of a very near-nuclear-weapons fulfillment in that time — that led us up to war in 2003. And, make no mistake, we’re not at that stage now, perhaps, but we’re certainly at a very dangerous stage in this negotiation, and this discussion’, Dr. Lewis told the audience [in Geneva in March 2007]. Dr. Lewis said that ‘There is no smoking gun. There is no absolute evidence that Iran is on a path to have nuclear weapons. The problem with this is that Iran is now in a trust deficit’.

Dr. Mousavian replied, at that time [March 2007] in Geneva,  that Iran had only signed [but not ratified] an Additional Protocol, allowing more and more intrusive NPT inspections, in December 2003 — and was therefore not obliged to report these activities prior to that date.

Buried in an AP story that was headlined as a criticism of U.S. military moves, the reporter, Ali Akbar Dareini, reported that Iranos Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [Khamene'i] “insisted his country is not seeking nuclear weapons, saying Islam forbids weapons of mass destruction. ‘Because of this reason, we don’t have any belief in the atomic bomb and don’t pursue it’, he said … Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters and is the commander in chief of Iran’s armed forces, said accusations by President Barack Obama and other American officials about Iran’s nuclear ambitions were made out of anger. ‘Repeating absurd words about the building of nuclear weapon in Iran shows that the enemies are resorting to repeating the propaganda out of ultimate failure’, Khamenei said”. This AP article can be read in full here.

The main thrust of the AP story was a report that “From the deck of Iran’s new guided-missile destroyer … [Jamaran] … the country’s first domestically built destroyer … launched at a Gulf port Friday … Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei criticized the U.S. military presence in the Gulf: Khamenei, wearing clerical robes and a turban and walking with a cane as he inspected the ship, said the presence of foreign forces in the Persian Gulf ‘disturbs security’ in the region but [and] Washington will fail to achieve its goals”.

International tensions are running high about Iranian “intentions” as it continues its program to enrich uranium — for completely legal civilian purposes, Iranian officials continue to insist, while the U.S. says “prove it”.

[Ahmedinejad gives his answer below...]

A protracted Iranian negotiation is still continuing about whether or not it will agree to send some of its approximately 3.5 to 5 percent enriched uranium (used to operate nuclear reactors which produce energy) outside Iran for further enrichment up to nearly 20 percent level, which is apparently what is needed for medical purposes.

International nerves are beginning to crack, and the U.S. imposed further financial sanctions on Wednesday, while diplomats are speculating about (and apparently trying to find out) whether or not China is becoming less opposed to further UN Security Council measures.

China Hand (Peter Lee) wrote on his fascinating China Matters blog yesterday that “Iran may have hoped that China would step into the nuclear dispute on its side, perhaps by agreeing to serve as middleman for the fuel exchange. It looks like they’ll be disappointed. But today Beijing also sent the message that U.S.-Chinese relations would suffer another blow from an aggressive Western push on Iran coupled with a demand that China knuckle under and support sanctions. The lead editorial in Global Times–the international affairs organ of People’s Daily and therefore an indication of the attitude of the Chinese leadership– made the point that China resents being ‘taken hostage’ by either side in the Iran crisis. It sends some heat Iran’s way (though it will be clear from the remarks of China’s ex-ambassador to Iran quoted below, China believes that Iran is open to concessions), but the main object of criticism is the United States. It is clear that China has decided to take the whole American ‘you gotta sanction Iran’ approach as another episode (following the disastrous falling-out at Copenhagen) in which the United States is happy to employ wedge issues against China, not only to advance its immediate goals, but to isolate China and reduce its standing as a global power. If the United States continues to take a hard line on China joining Iran sanctions, instead of backing off and continuing negotiations, China will take it as a conscious, hostile act against China”. Further on in this post, China Hand reports that the People’s Daily interviewed China’s ex-ambassador to Iran, Hua Liming, and “Ambassador Hua told the paper that the main purpose of Iran’s declaration of its intention to purify its uranium to near 20% was to put pressure on the West and particularly the United States. Only a week before, Ahmedinejad had…stated that Iran was prepared to accept the UN nuclear fuel exchange agreement…indicating that Iran still hoped to reach an agreement with the IAEA, but that the exchange terms had to be beneficial to Iran. Previously, the IAEA proposal called for Iran to ship its fuel to Russia, where it would be refined to 20%. Afterwards, the fuel would be shipped to France and fabricated into fuel rods. This span of time would be 12 months. Iran clearly was worried about the 12-month limit and had expressed a hope that the time be reduced to four to five months. However, the Western countries refused. Under these circumstances, Iran adopted a relatively unyielding attitude … Ambassador Hua stated, ‘Unyielding’ only is one side of the coin…the other side, ‘Concessions’, still exists. Iran has already indicated its attitude that it will accept the IAEA plan. In general, Iran still hopes for nuclear negotiations and would not lightly close the door to negotiations”. This post can be read in full here.

China Hand explained in a previous post the day before that “According to Haaretz: Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday Iran was now prepared to send low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad before getting reactor fuel back. Before, Tehran insisted on small swaps on its own soil. That would defeat the draft plan’s purpose of reducing Iran’s total LEU reserve below the quantity required to set off an atomic bomb, if it were refined to high purity. As noted below, China is perhaps the only major power that Iran could rely upon to conduct an offshore swap. Wonder if China will rise to the bait … During a February 9, 2009 press briefing, a spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs praised China’s ever more important role on the world stage. He also stated, according to Phoenix TV’s correspondent on the scene: If China was willing, Iran could consider conducting the nuclear fuel exchange through China. The nuclear fuel exchange refers to a proposed confidence-building deal between Iran and the West that has basically turned into a confidence-demolition deal. The IAEA proposed that Iran ship most of its declared low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia for enrichment to 20%; then the Russians would ship the fuel to France for fabrication into rods and return the rods to Iran so it could make medical isotopes in its Tehran Research Reactor. Theory was that Iran would get out of the uranium enrichment business and the world could find something else to worry about. However, U.S. engagement with Iran, like so many other nice things the Obama administration had planned, went off the tracks, thanks in part to the large anti-government demonstrations following last year’s dubious presidential election in Iran. Understandably, the Iranians worried that, if they sent their uranium overseas to Russia (which has started to side with the U.S. on Iran issues) and France, they might never get it back, and they reportedly proposed some deal that would involve incremental exchanges of enriched material for their LEU. The result was a lot of huffing and puffing from the West about Iranian bad faith and a concerted drive for new Iran sanctions. China is the only member of the P5 (Security Council + Germany) clearly resistant to new sanctions. The Iran offer can be seen as 1) an effort to get China involved on its side 2) a recognition that China is the one party that would reliably return their uranium. The offer didn’t come up in China’s MOFA Feb. 9 presser. On the Iran issue, the Chinese spokesperson stated: We hope and support that the concerned parties can achieve a unanimity of views on the IAEA’s draft agreement for supply of fuel to the Teheran Research Reactor. This would contribute to the favorable resolution of the Iran nuclear question. The Chinese, like the rest of the world, are probably waiting to see if the Iranian government can keep the lid on the demonstrations everybody’s hyping for February 11. If the Iranian government works its authoritarian magic on the demonstrators, I believe China will maintain its current position of negotiations and no sanctions. If the wheels come off and Iran heads for a period of serious political instability, China will simply keep its head down until the clear winner emerges”. This earlier posting can be read in full here.

In any case, a big celebration is underway in Tehran today.  Al-Jazeera International TV is now broadcasting live a speech from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

He began in a touching, reconciliatory way: “Human beings are connected to each other all around the world”.

Then he moved into what is usually called the “defiant” mode, referring to the world powers as being: “against the progress of Iran — they want the Iranian people to be backward, and to be under the rule of ignorant dictators all the time.  They do not want to see the Iranian people free and independent … They are against the pure Mohammedian [sic - translator's exact word] Islam practiced in Iran which would be the basis for the progress of Iran in the area.  They want to impose hegemony, and they see Iran as an obstacle to fulfilling their intentions.  The Iranian people are a proud people … but they want to stop our progress, and with their double and triple standards  … They want to control people all over the world.  This is a modern slavery.  Before the two superpowers divided the whole world into two parts … and people had to be in one or the other, but both had the same purpose — to erase the peoples of the worlds beliefs.  They don’t respect friendship and loyalty or human virtue and have replaced it with cheating and lies.  Last year more than 120 million were killed under beautiful slogans and a few millions were homeless, while 80 percent of the people of the world are living in absolute poverty … With their arms race, nuclear bombs, atomic bombs they control the whole world … By the grace of God … during a short time, we could get rid of Marxism and communism and those ideologies have gone into history and no longer exist (CHINA???)  (cheers )  By the grace of God, the Western wing of this power is reaching a deadlock in politis in economy in culture and even in military power, and they are now begging, and they are now at the end of their hegemony, and by God’s will those bad powers will be toppled.  … They are now at the end of their rule, and look at what the Iranian people have achieved in the past 31 years.  We were a people who just got rid of colonialism and dictatorship, and just testing the freedom and happiness, and we were in absolute poverty.  We did not have any position in the international community politically or economically … we were  a forgotten people, an incapable people … therefore they worked hard and tried hard, but by God’s grace and by the consensus and agreement of the people of Iran and the path and rule of the Imam we could foil their attempts.  Look where we are now”.

Where is Iran now?  Ahmedinejad then made his annual announcement: “Today I am proud to announce that our scientists are using the laser technology in all aspects of the requirments of the Iranian people – (crowd breaks into chants, including “Allahu akbar”) – It is the beginning of the scientific revolution in Iran, all aspects of science, physics, mathematics … Everyday there is a new invention, a new creation, that is brought out by the Iranian people”.

Ahmedinejad said (via Al-Jazeera translator) that Iran had “become a nuclear power… and in Geneva [I think he meant Vienna, where the IAEA is located] they said they would like to cooperate … in the agency all members are obliged to share 20 percent enriched fuel … we said we want to keep our own nuclear fuel … they said they will pay for it … we said, no problem, we will calculate everything that goes in and out and keep what we need, but they said no we want all of it, we will enrich it, and we will give you back what you want …They said no, we have to send all our material out then they will offer us what we need .. they think they will stop us from making our atomic bomb, but that is a foolish thinking.  We said we do not believe you and history shows us we cannot rely on you.  They started making a lot of problems and contacted the international agency … which said they are not allowed to put conditions — They think the Iranian people have become weak and they are capable of imposing their conditions upon Iran.  They say they prefer to wait until the Iranian people are ready to accept their conditions.  That shows their bad attitude — we have our rights not to trust them, not to depend on them.  Then they issued an ultimatum.  We said the Iranian people will never accept the imposing any conditions and will not obey what is imposed.  We told them we are going to use the more-enriched 20 percent] reactor fuel for medical purposes to produce medicine, therefore we do not have enough time, we have to prepare our own fuel”…

Then, another announcement: “I am proud to announce that the production of 20 percent has already begun: the head of our agency announced that the first production of 20 percent fuel has already been prepared and we are now using it (cheers)”…

Ahmedinejad continued: “They say the Iranian people do not listen — America is prepared to help with the 20 percent fuel.  We said ok, but without conditions … It is not us who have a problem, it is you who have to correct yourself.  They said you should not produce nuclear medicine.  We said what’s wrong with that?  We can produce it, and you can buy it.  What’s wrong with that?”  (cheers)  “We are producing in Natanz every day a few kilos a day, and in the near future we will soon produce three times more” …

This is still far from the production of weapons-grade uranium, which must be enriched to 80 percent or more [probably to even more -- 90, or even 93 percent].

Ahmedinejad added:  “Is is possible to produce an atomic/nuclear bomb under the supervision of the IAEA? … Even in Natanz we are capable of producing higher than 20 percent enrichment [he did not specify that Iran could enrich up to 80 percent, as some news reports suggested immediately after this speech], but we are not producing atomic bomb … if you do not know that, then you can invite certain good scientists to explain that to you, because whatever we do is under the supervision of the Agency (IAEA). Our people are so brave that if we want to produce an atomic bomb, it will frankly and clearly declare that it wants to produce that … When we say we don’t produce it, that means we don’t produce it … You think your atomic bomb will save you, so keep thinking that way… We hope you will regret it … We are against your plundering of the world, against your way of dealing with the world, your inhuman attitude.  We are brave, we hope you will become brave like us.  You want to take over the whole region, but the people of Iran will never allow that.  Everyone should know that is what they want: They want to take control of the whole region, and we will never allow that … You try to create disputes between the people of the whole world”.

The Iranian president noted that due to the stance of Iran, against colonialism, the people of the world are aware of what is happening.  “I declare officially that the time of the superpowers is arriving at its end”, he told the large, disciplined, enthusiastic crowd.

Both the government and the opposition have called for a large turnout at public events marking this 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution…

Cyrus Safdari wrote on his Iran Affairs blog yesterday Iran has been making its own medical isotopes for a long time now. Indeed, the reactor that the Iranians want to make 20% enriched fuel for (TRR or Tehran Research Reactor) and which is used to make the medical isotopes was built in 1967, during the Shah’s time, with the assistance and cooperation of the US (the US also provided the initial batch of 93% weapons-grade, highly-enriched uranium fuel to operate it.) Iran’s plans to make medical isotopes is thus simply a continuation of a long pre-existing capacity and not something new cooked up by Ahmadinejad as part of a secret plot to make nukes. In fact, the Iranians did not want to enrich uranium to 20% to power the reactor — no, as Flint Leverett points out, they first offered to purchase the finished fuel for the reactor on the open market, as they have done in the past (they last purchased the fuel from Argentina in the 1980s, which also helped Iran convert the reactor to one that uses 19% enriched uranium rather than weapons-grade 93% enriched uranium.) The US swap deal offer was made after Iran attempted to acquire the finished fuel … Second, regarding the “more efficient” claim, as Juan Cole points out, Iran’s announcement that it would make its own reactor fuel to make its own medical isotopes is quite logical, quoting Jeffrey Lewis of the New America Foundation: ‘Iran has developed plans to use naturally occurring uranium as a “target” for producing an important medical diagnostic isotope of molybdenum, an isotope whose decay product can be used to scan for cancers in bone, heart, lung, and kidney. Iran already imports a sizable quantity of this pharmacological radionuclide but producing it indigenously would not only save Iran a considerable amount of money each year, much more than it would pay for the fuel for the reactor it would use to produce it, but also allow a more efficient use of this short lived isotope by preventing the decay of nearly half of the amount bought before it even reached the patients. Perhaps the biggest incentive indigenous production of 99Mo in Iran would be the encouragement of its entire nuclear medicine infrastructure; an infrastructure that might right the imbalance of medical isotopes into this developing country relative to other nations.” ‘ Though Juan Cole didn’t quote it, Jeffrey Lewis also writes in the same article: ‘It costs Iran about a $1 million per annum to import its current needs for diagnostic 99Mo. About half of that is “wasted” in transit as the molybdenum decays, an amount that could be saved if the isotope was produced locally… The real benefit to Iran for completing this deal, however, will not be the savings of a few million dollars or even the savings of nearly half the imported diagnostic radioisotopes from unavoidable wastage due to decays during shipment. The real savings will be the foot up Iran gets in its health care from starting to develop its own nuclear medicine industry. The discrepancy between the use of diagnostic isotopes in Iran and the developed world can, and should, be dramatically reduced; as it should for the entire world. Finally, regarding the myth that Iran “first accepted, then rejected” the uranium swap agreement: Iran explicitly said that they agreed only “in principle” to the idea of the swap but have made suggestions to firm-up the guarantees that the US would actually meet its obligations under the deal by, for example, suggesting that uranium should be swapped in batches. The negotiations are continuing and so the offer has not been “rejected”. Again, as Flint Leverette points out, the Iranians did not reject it, and the US is the one which has been intransigent by insisting on a “take it or leave it” approach… which as I have written before only proves that the US offer was probably yet another poison-pill MEANT to be not accepted by Iran in order to portray Iran as being hell-bent on making nukes… [UPDATE: a kind reader points out: 'The US is not in a position to "help" Iran obtain the medical isotopes. Diplomatic conflicts aside, this is the worst time in history to obtain molybdenum-99, since the world's main suppliers -- the problem-ridden NRU reactor (Chalk River, Canada) and HFR reactor (Petten, Netherlands) -- are both shut down for major maintenance. Those reactors were producing near 2/3 of the world supply of molybdenum-99 early last year. There is almost nothing the U.S. can do to help, since it has no domestic source of molybdenum-99]. This information can be read in full here.

By the end of the anniversary day in Iran, it was clear that although some major opposition figures were arrested early in the day, Ahmadinejad’s speech was bigger news, and the situation did not get out of control, under a massive security deployment.

AP reported that “Opposition Web sites spoke of groups of protesters in the hundreds, compared to much larger crowds in past demonstrations. One protester told The Associated Press she had tried to join the demonstrations but soon left in disappointment. ‘There were 300 of us, maximum 500. Against 10,000 people’, she told an AP reporter outside Iran. She said there were few clashes … Another protester insisted the opposition had come out in significant numbers, but ‘the problem was that we were not able to gather in one place because they (security forces) were very violent’.” This AP report can be read in full here.

Meanwhile, Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s nuclear program, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera International that Iran is “capable” of enriching uranium to the degree that it wants — 100 or 200 percent, he said, and he added that Iran has the perfect right to do so if it implements the IAEA safeguards agreements. In the interview, Salehi also asked U.S. President Obama to please not make any wrong step, or to challenge Iran, because the consequences would be unimaginable, he said.

The AP story added that the IAEA document “was significant in being the first glimpse at Iran’s plan to enrich uranium to 20 percent that did not rely on statements from Iranian officials. Iran says it wants to enrich only up to that grade — substantially below the 90 percent plus level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads — as a part of a plan to fuel its research reactor that provides medical isotopes to hundreds of thousands of Iranians undergoing cancer treatment. But the West says Tehran is not capable of turning the material into the fuel rods needed by the reactor. Instead it fears that Iran wants to enrich the uranium to make nuclear weapons.  Iran denies such aspirations. But its move is viewed with concern internationally because it would create material that could then be processed into weapons-grade uranium more quickly and with less effort than Iran’s present stockpile of 3.5 percent enriched uranium”.

The restricted-distribution IAEA document noted that ” ‘there is currently only one cascade … that is capable of enriching’ up to 20 percent …A cascade is 164 centrifuges hooked up in series that spin and re-spin uranium gas to the required enrichment level”.

According to the AP report, “Iran has over 8,000 centrifuges at Natanz, although not all are working. It has amassed about 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium — more than enough for one warhead should it opt for that choice.  Iranian officials have said that they expect to produce 3 to 5 kilograms (up to 12 pounds) of 20-percent uranium a month. David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said that at that rate, it would take Tehran about three years to produce enough for further enrichment into the 25 kilograms (55 pounds) of weapons-grade uranium needed for one warhead.  The IAEA document said the agency had asked for details on ‘the timetable for the production process (including the starting date and the expected duration of the campaign), along with other technical details’. Albright said that indicated that the Iranians were keeping silent on how long they would enrich to the higher grade and thus how much material they intended to produce”.

AP said that as a result of Iran’s decision to enrich to the 20 percent level, Washington has decided “to impose new sanctions on several affiliates of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps over their alleged involvement in producing and spreading weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. Treasury Department announced that it would freeze assets in U.S. jurisdictions of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Rostam Qasemi and four subsidiaries of a construction firm he commands, which was hit with U.S. sanctions in 2007. The sanctions expand existing U.S. unilateral penalties against elements of the Guard Corps, which Western intelligence believes is spearheading Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to export its enriched uranium, enrich the material further and return it in the form of fuel rods for the reactor — and in broader terms for turning down other overtures meant to diminish concerns about its nuclear agenda. Iran, in turn, asserts it had no choice but to start enriching to higher levels because its suggested modifications to the plan were rejected.  That plan was welcomed internationally because it would have delayed Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon by shipping out about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile. Tehran denies nuclear weapons ambitions, insisting it needs to enrich to create fuel for an envisioned nuclear reactor network”. This AP report can be read in full here.

AFP reported from Tehran reported that the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Wednesday “spurned a US offer to supply it with medical isotopes if it stops further enriching uranium as world powers warned the time for diplomacy was limited and the sanctions clock was ticking. The foreign ministry shunned the US offer as ‘not logical’, after State Department spokesman Philip Crowley floated the idea on Tuesday when Iran said it had begun enriching uranium to 20 percent for a Tehran research reactor. ‘Shutting down the reactor or stopping the production of medicine is not the solution’, foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters. ‘This proposal is not logical … The solution is that the other side cooperates to increase (the number of) these reactors… and meet the needs of patients’, he said … adding that Washington and other world powers had ‘better adopt a realistic approach instead of economic and political pressures to deprive us of our basic rights’.” This AFP report can is published here.

But the terms he said Iran could accept are not exactly identical with the terms being offered by major powers who want Iran to stop enriching its own uranium in Iran.

The Associated Press’ George Jahn reported from Vienna that “The decision is a major shift in the Iranian position on the issue”, adding that Ahmadinejad said Iran will have ‘no problem’ giving the West its low-enriched uranium and taking it back several months later when it is enriched by 20 percent … ‘If we allow them to take it, there is no problem. We sign a contract to give 3.5 percent enriched uranium and receive 20 percent enriched one after four or five months’, Ahmadinejad said”.

The AP report observed that Ahmadinejad “appeared to be saying for the first time that Iran was willing to ship out its enriched uranium and wait for it to be returned in the form of fuel for its Tehran research reactor. But his time frame of four or five months appeared to fall short of the year that Western officials say it would take for Iran’s enriched fuel to be turned into fuel rods for the reactor … Ahmadinejad also did not address whether his country was ready to ship out most of its stockpile in one batch — another condition set by the six world powers endorsing the fuel swap. If Iran were to agree to export most of its enriched uranium in one shipment, it would delay its ability to make a nuclear weapon by stripping it of the material it needs to make the fissile core of a warhead. Experts believe it would need at least a year to replenish its stockpile at its present rate of uranium enrichment”.

However, AP noted that Ahmadinejad “dismissed concerns by what he called ‘colleagues’ that the West would not return the uranium, saying Iran would respond to that by continuing to produce its own enriched uranium. The plan for shipping the low enriched uranium abroad for treatment comes from the International Atomic Agency. It was first drawn up in early October in a landmark meeting in Geneva between Iran and the six world powers, and then refined later that month in Vienna talks among Iran, the U.S., Russia and France. The talks in Vienna came up with a draft proposal that would take 70 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium to reduce its stockpile of material that could be enriched to a higher level, and possibly be used to make nuclear weapons … That uranium would be returned about a year later as refined fuel rods, which can power reactors but cannot be readily turned into weapons-grade material”.

The AP added that “In Tuesday’s interview, Ahmadinejad repeated his wish to see the West build nuclear power plants in his country. ‘They want to cooperate? OK, we cooperate. We do not have any problem. Let them build 20 nuclear power plants. Is there a problem? Russia, France and the U.S., come and build’. Iran is building with Russia’s help its first nuclear power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr. The plant is scheduled to be inaugurated later this year”. This AP report is published here.

Meanwhile, two days earlier Iran announced that it is making further preparations to deal with the possibility of tightened sanctions. The official Iranian news agency IRNA reported that “Iran plans to build seven new oil and gas refineries in a bid to diminish its vulnerability to sanctions from foreign refineries”. An enormous Iranian refinery was destroyed almost 30 years ago, at the start of the Iran-Iraq war, which saw massive destruction of both countries’ infrastructure. The Iranian refining capability has never been rebuilt. Iran now relies on exporting its oil for refinement abroad — then re-importing its own oil after paying for the increased value. New sanctions being considered against Iran by the United States plan to target this dependence.

Tony Karon on Friday 5 Feb about Tues 2 Feb offer

Ahmadinejad had initially crowed over the deal brokered last October, but was forced to backpedal by a firestorm of criticism of the agreement from Iran’s entire, fractious political spectrum. Tehran’s demand for changes was rejected by the U.S. and its allies, who insisted that the package could not be renegotiated – and with Iran declining to accept its terms, Western powers began to press for new sanctions. Some of Iran’s key trade partners, however, demurred, a

Reports have suggested that Ahmadinejad’s latest statements may reflect progress in efforts to broker a plan for Japan to act as the guarantor that Iran would receive the processed reactor fuel – on a four- to five-month time frame, according to Ahmadinejad’s statement – in exchange for the uranium it ships out into Japanese custody. (Ahmadinejad’s new time frame appears to be a compromise between the original proposal, which envisaged a one-year lag between Iran exporting its uranium and receiving fuel rods, and Iran’s demand for a simultaneous exchange on its territory. But until Iran formally delivers a new proposal to the IAEA, the details of any new proposals will remain a matter of speculation.)

But there could be a simpler explanation for Ahmadinejad’s apparent desire to revive the reactor-fuel deal: the Tehran Research Reactor, which produces medical isotopes, will run out of fuel this year, and it was Iran’s attempts to buy new fuel that created the opening for the deal involving Iran sending its uranium abroad for reprocessing. Although Ahmadinejad likes to boast that if Iran can’t acquire such fuel abroad, it will create it at home, that would take months or years of work

Ahmadinejad also has to deal with suspicions among Iran’s leaders that the deal was a trick that would deprive Iran of most of its hard-won uranium stockpile. That, of course, is a stated goal of the Western powers in pursuing the deal, because it would remove from Iran three-quarters of a stockpile that could, hypothetically, be reprocessed to create materiel for a single nuclear bomb. Replenishing that amount, at current rates of output, would take Iran the best part of a year, during which time Western powers hope to persuade Iran to end uranium enrichment altogether. But Iran has no intention of ending enrichment: the nuclear program is strongly backed by all major political factions in Tehran, and most of the international community accepts Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes

White house spokesman Bill Burton on 3 Feb

Iranian President Ahmadinejad said yesterday that Iran was in fact ready to go ahead with a deal that it had reached earlier but yet reneged on to allow its nuclear fuel to be processed abroad. Does the President see that as a serious offer or overture, and would the U.S. take advantage of that in some way? Or do they see it as being a way of diverting attention or diverting efforts towards a new round of sanctions?

MR. BURTON: Well, some of these reports have been pretty fragmentary in the sense that we haven’t seen the whole transcript and everything that he has said. But if those comments indicate some sort of change in position for Iran, then President Ahmadinejad should let the IAEA know.
Reading through some of the English language Iranian press day after reports on Ahmadinejad’s interview, a couple items stand out:
This piece that shows that Ahmadinejad’s interview was advertised as a major live address to the nation that was given some pre-billing. Seems unlikely it would have been set up that way without the Supreme Leader’s blessing, a Reuters analysis posits. (An Iran expert also suggested that Iran’s rocket launch today is the sort of “show of strength” that might happen before Iran would offer a deal, to try to project strength so they don’t look weak.)
Some interesting discussion here by Iran’s atomic energy chief Salehi about conversations Iran having on Tehran Research Reactor with various countries. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said today Iranians had spoken in Davos last weekend with French and Brazilian officials about the TRR deal and had some things clarified. Salehi suggests there have also been discussions with a nation in Asia, by which China’s Xinhua news agency seemed to think he meant Japan (ahem).
Key western power were quite united in their messaging last night and today that if Iran has a serious offer they should contact the IAEA.

As CNN reported, there were gasps in the room when the head of the Nobel prize committee made the announcement this morning.

The head of the Nobel prize committee explained that Obama won for his extraordinary efforts to improve the international climate and strengthen international diplomacy within the framework of international institutions (e.g., the United Nations).

(He added in a later interview on CNN that “of course, other people have to respond positively” – then he indicated that Obama’s distinction is due to his having given diplomacy a central position.)

The announcement also noted that Obama has revived global hopes of creating a world without nuclear weapons.

The message from the Nobel Prize Committee seems to be: keep up the good work.

It seems to be a form of Positive Reinforcement Therapy, in which rewards are given for good behavior (instead of punishments for being bad…)

The results are not yet in on Obama’s involvement in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

It was good that he has ordered an end to talking about the “war against terror”, and to portraying all Muslims as the enemy.

But is Obama just getting the Nobel Peace Prize for who he is, rather than what he has done?

Obama’s desire to engage in dialog with Iran deserves credit. Mohamed ElBaradei, outgoing head of IAEA, said that “We wasted 6 years on the Iranian issue — we have mismanaged it …I can’t see any other way of handling it other than Iran and the US sitting at the table across from each other …”

Then again, what about the crisis in Afghanistan, where Obama continues to prosecute the war against the nebulous Al-Qaeda group, and many civilians seem to be paying the price. Obama may even be considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, rather than to drawn down forces and withdraw.

My friend and colleague Robert James Parsons, journalist at the UN Office in Geneva, wrote in an email message this morning: “Was Obama three days in office, or merely two, when he signed the order for the bombing of Pakistan? Here at the Geneva Office of the United Nations, on Tuesday and Friday mornings, at the general press briefing, we are updated twice weekly on the plight of the 2.7 MILLION people displaced by the mindless bombing of their homeland, updated as well on a seemingly endless list of schools, clinics, dispensaries etc. destroyed. This is as much a war of aggression against a sovereign country as was the launching of the war against Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq … With regard to Afghanistan, Secretary of State told U.N. Secretary-General that the United States had ‘irrefutable’ evidence proving that the Taliban regime was directly behind the September 11 attacks and that this evidence would shortly be presented to the Security Council, to justify this ‘war of self-defence’. In the meantime, lest precious time be lost, the bombing set up during the summer, proceeded apace. Eight years later to the day, the U.N. Security Council is still waiting for this evidence”.

And Obama continues to talk about “destroying the Al-Qaeda organization”.

There has to be a better way to do it.

To really deserve this peace prize, Obama should wind down these wars … and face up to the issue of torture, and the detention facilities in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq where possibly innocent detainees have been held in an unconsionable legal limbo for years.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore (jointly with the UN Panel on Climate Change), both won the Nobel Peace Prize, but after leaving office.

It was later reported by Haaretz, combining reports from news agencies, that “Obama’s press secretary woke him with the news before dawn and the president felt ‘humbled’ by the award, a senior administration official said. When told in an email from Reuters that many people around the world were stunned by the announcement, Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, responded: ‘As are we’.”

Once fully awake and out of bed, Obama said in front of the cameras later that “I will accept this award as a call to action”

Then, I can’t help recalling the recent words of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who wrote recently that “I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination. What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, ‘Should Obama be killed?’ The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin … And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet ’socialist’ to calling him a ‘liar’ in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives. Again, hack away at the man’s policies and even his character all you want. I know politics is a tough business. But if we destroy the legitimacy of another president to lead or to pull the country together for what most Americans want most right now — nation-building at home — we are in serious trouble … We can’t change this overnight, but what we can change, and must change, is people crossing the line between criticizing the president and tacitly encouraging the unthinkable and the unforgivable”. This Thomas Friedman article can be read in full here.

During the presidential elections campaign before Obama was elected, there was something similar — predictions were wrongly made that because some people could never accept a president like him, he would be assassinated within six months. That, thankfully, proved wrong. But these are indeed stupid, ugly, and irresponsible speculations.

But what I wonder is: will winning the Nobel Peace Prize do anything to stop this, or will it only make it worse?

Then, for some reason, U.S. President Barack Obama decided to talk somewhat tough, according to a report published in the Jerusalem Post: “Now that Iran has agreed to open its newly disclosed nuclear enrichment facility to international inspectors, it ‘must grant unfettered access’ to those inspectors within two weeks, Obama said. ‘Talk is no substitute for action’, Obama said at the White House after talks ended earlier in the day in Switzerland. ‘Our patience is not unlimited’. Obama said that if Iran follows through with concrete steps ‘there is a path to a better relationship’ with the United States and the international community. He said that Iran’s promise during the talks to transfer some of its low-enriched uranium to another country for processing is an example of such a step. The uranium would be used in a medical-research reactor”. This JPost report can be read in full here.

Proposals have been made previously that Iran should buy all its enriched uranium abroad and import it — one option would have been through Russia. Iran has made counter-offers to produce — IN IRAN — and to sell abroad to other customers — enriched uranium produced under a consortium of regional or international countries.

But it has never previously offered to rely on an outside supplier.

In this case, it could be that the Iranian President’s offer is to buy MOST IF NOT ALL of the enriched uranium it needs from abroad, while still keeping its own enriched uranium production facility intact and ready to go. if and when needed.

Until now, Iran has insisted on having its own indigenous uranium enrichment “capability” because it cannot be confident that any outside or third-party supplier might oneday decide to interrupt contracted supply arrangements. Iranian officials say that their country’s 30+ years of experience — dating from Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, if not longer — shows that it cannot rely on contracts. Iran still cannot get delivery of spare parts for its civilian airliners that it bought and paid for, prior to the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, and this embargo has been blamed for the precarious state of aircraft safety in Iran, and for several airplane crashes.

Iran has hinted in the past that the “capability” it must have, as a bottom-line, does not necessarily mean full-scale production, but rather at the very least the “capability” to produce its own fuel in case of a commercial interruption for political or any other reason.

The first round of Geneva talks was held in July 2008, and was inconclusive. Diplomats were clearly frustrated at the end of a long day in Geneva’s Hotel de Ville, or town hall, in the center of its old city. Today’s meeting is being held in the Villa Le Saugy, in the Geneva countryside, which the NYTimes called “an 18th-century villa well-protected from the press”.

Though the group of diplomats meeting Iran are usually called the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — US, UK, France, Russia and China — plus Germany), European diplomats at the first round of Geneva talks wore badges saying it was a meeting of 3 + 3 (three EU members plus three others — US, Russia and China). The EU’s High Representative for a Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, also attended last year’s talks, and will be at the Geneva meeting today as well.

Until now, Germany has probably been the country in the group that is most supportive of Iran. In advance of today’s Geneva Talks Two (and after the very recent brouhaha about Iranian plans to build a second enrichment facility for some 20+ planned future nuclear energy plants), at least one German official has suggested that Iran is “failing to co-operate”.

Agence France Press reported that according to the Iranian News Agency, Iran’s President Ahmedinejad told journalists in Iran this week that: “One of the subjects on the agenda of this negotiation is how we can get fuel for our Tehran reactor … As I said in New York, we need 19.75 percent-enriched uranium. We said that, and we propose to buy it from anybody who is ready to sell it to us. We are ready to give 3.5 percent-enriched uranium and then they can enrich it more and deliver to us 19.75 percent-enriched uranium”.

But — what is this 19.75 percent enrichment that Ahmedinejad mentioned? Have any arms specialists analyzed this?

UPDATE: Juan Cole noted on his blog, Informed Comment, that “Iran agreed to send ‘most’ of its stock of low enriched uranium (3.5%) to Russia for processing to the roughly 20% degree of enrichment needed to run its small reactor producing medical isotopes. Iran has about 3200 pounds of low-enriched uranium, and is willing to send 2600 to Russia. That is a little over a ton, or about what a single Ford Focus weighs. Iran does not anyway have the ability to enrich to more than about 4.8% at the moment, and the medical reactor will be out of fuel in a little over a year, so if they continued to want the medical isotopes they would be forced to take this step anyway”. For full story, see strong>here.

So, a nuclear reactor producing medical isotopes needs uranium enriched to 19.74 percent???

Before Ahmedinejad’s statement in New York, where he addressed the UN General Assembly and held meetings on the sidelines with those who would meet with him, it was generally thought that Iran’s own enrichment program would only upgrade its uranium to the 5 percent level.

Iran’s refusal to stop its enrichment program has cost it three rounds of sanctions authorized by the UN Security Council.

The legality and political legitimacy of the demands on Iran to stop its enrichment program are (and have been) debated.

The bottom line of the “international community”, as expressed by the UN Security Council, is that Iran take steps to rebuild “confidence”. This involves, the Security Council has said, stopping the uranium enrichment program which Iran believes is legally justifiable. Iranian officials also deny that Iran has any intention of building a nuclear weapon, and only wants to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes — but there is a certain amount of international scepticism about these statements that has largely prevailed.

Israel’s YNet reported that “the details [of Ahmedinejad's proposal] were not immediately clear”, and added that “In New York last week, Ahmadinejad said Iran would seek to enrich uranium to 20% itself if it could not find the product in the market for its research reactor in Tehran”. YNet noted that “Uranium enrichment is the sensitive process that lies at the centre of Western concerns over Iran’s real ambitions. The process can produce the fuel for nuclear power or, in highly extended form, the fissile core of an atomic bomb. Iran’s current program permits enrichment to reach 5% A full 90% would be required to produce a bomb”. YNet added that Iran’s “five megawatt plant was supplied by the United States before the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the US-backed shah. The reactor is under IAEA supervision.”

An intriguing development has been the issuance of a U.S. visa for Iran’s Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, to visit Washington on the eve of the Geneva Two Talks.
A U.S. State Department spokesman cooly told journalists in Washington not to read too much into it — but it is a very unusual move.