The IAEA report suggested that there was no way to understand parts of Iran’s nuclear research other than to believe there was an aim to study how a nuclear weapon might be developed.

The IAEA 35-member Board of Governors adopted the resolution — which expressed “deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions” — on Friday 18 November.

The resolution also expressed the Board’s “continuing support for a diplomatic solution”. It called on Iran to implement an additional IAEA inspection protocol which is purely voluntary for other countries — Iran has been ordered to do so by a series of resolutions in the UN Security Council.

And the IAEA Board resolution also called on Iran “to engage seriously and without preconditions in talks aimed at restoring international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, while respecting the legitimate right to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with the NPT”.

According to a report in the New York Times, “the global powers meeting in Vienna criticized Tehran on Friday over suspicions that it is building a nuclear weapon. The rebuke, however, fell far short of threatening further pressure or actions to curb Iran’s contentious uranium enrichment program”. This was attributed in part to objections from Russia and China. The NYTimes article can be read in full here.

The NYTimes report added that the Iranian representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, “accused the nuclear agency of endangering the lives of Iranian scientists by releasing their names in an annex to last week’s report about the suspicions of nuclear weapons work. ‘The release of the names of the Iranian nuclear scientists by the agency has made them targets for assassination by terrorist groups as well as the Israeli regime and the U.S. intelligence services’, he said in a letter to the body’s director general, Yukiya Amano. Parts of the letter were published by Iran’s state-financed Press TV satellite broadcaster, which noted that several Iranian nuclear scientists had been killed in episodes attributed by Iran to Israeli, British and American intelligence services. Mr. Soltanieh contended that disclosing the names of Iranian experts represented a violation of the agency’s rules and said Tehran reserved the right to seek damages from the agency for any harm to its personnel or property as a result of the report — a possible reference to Tehran’s frequently voiced fears of an Israeli military strike on its nuclear facilities”….

In a separate, but possibly related, matter, the U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is due to meet Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Canada on the sidelines of a larger meeting.

Apparently, Ambassador Soltanieh said that as a result of today’s vote, Iran had decided not to attend an upcoming IAEA meeting on establishing a nuclear-weapons-free-zone in the Middle East.

The publication of the IAEA report [which was leaked to the press within minutes of its distribution to the Board of Governors] has also been criticized by Seyed Hossein Mousavian, whose remarks are reported in an interview published by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, here. The Bulletin describes Mousavian as “a lecturer and research scholar at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, is the highest-ranking member of Iran’s political elite living in the United States”. Here is an excerpt of the Q+A:

Q [Ali Vaez]:…Back in 2008, Iran addressed most of these allegations in a 117-page response to the IAEA. Wouldn’t publication of this response be a more constructive move than taking umbrage at the IAEA?

Mousavian: The IAEA has, unfortunately, broken the rules of the game. Iran does not want to commit the same mistake. The issues between the agency and member states should remain confidential. Iran respects the rules and does not disclose its communications with the agency. Yet, the content of the IAEA reports on Iran are leaked to the media ahead of their distribution among the agency’s member states. This is highly unprofessional and against the statute of the agency. Such behavior is highly damaging to the credibility of the IAEA, as an impartial international body. It also clearly demonstrates that the information is dictated to the agency from somewhere else in order to make the case for ratcheting up pressure on Iran. The publication of these allegations was a significant step backward.

…

[Mousavian continued:]

The recent developments constitute another chapter in the long tale of Western miscalculations about Iran. The West has constantly resorted to escalating pressure on Tehran, without pondering about the resulting backlash. After the 1979 revolution, Iran sought to shrink the nuclear program and had no intention to have indigenous uranium enrichment. Nevertheless, the Germans, the French, and the Americans refused to respect their contractual commitments, abandoned our unfinished nuclear projects, rebuffed our demands for compensation, and denied us nuclear fuel. Therefore, Iran had no other option than to take matters into its own hands and aim at self-sufficiency. This was in no way a unique venture. The West provided Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons, which he used against Iranians with impunity. As the first victims of weapons of mass destruction since the Second World War, Iran felt compelled to develop chemical and biological deterrence capabilities. The same logic applies to Iran’s ballistic missile program, which was created to counter Iraq’s Western-supplied long-range missiles. Therefore, you can trace back the root of Iran’s current deterrence capabilities to the sense of solitude that Tehran experienced during the Iran-Iraq War.

…

Vaez: You were part of the team of Iranian negotiators that in 2003 reached a deal with the EU-3 (France, Britain and Germany) that reduced the tension between Iran and the West and brought about the implementation of the Additional Protocol (for enhanced IAEA safeguards) and suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran. Is a similar diplomatic breakthrough attainable at this juncture?

Mousavian: When the question of suspension came up in 2003, there were two schools of thought in Iran. One group advocated engagement with the West, while others were proponents of resistance. The majority was with the advocates of reaching a negotiated compromise with the West. Consequently, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei consented to a temporary suspension as a non-legally binding confidence-building measure. He was, however, suspicious of Western intentions and remained skeptical about the ability of European countries to fulfill their end of the bargain. Still, we went even beyond suspension and voluntarily signed and implemented the Additional Protocol and the subsidiary agreements, and provided the IAEA with unprecedented access to our nuclear facilities and even military sites. After two years of Tehran’s full cooperation and transparency efforts, the Europeans failed to deliver on their promises because of American obstructionism. As a result of this deadlock, the Supreme Leader decided to turn the table. The ruling apparatus prepared the country for crippling sanctions and even war, and then Iran suspended the implementation of the Additional Protocol, broke the IAEA seals, and restarted our uranium refinement activities. It is important to note that Iran resumed some activities — i.e. at the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, during the presidency of [reformist] President Mohammad Khatami — and restarted other programs, i.e. uranium enrichment in Natanz, under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration. Since then, there has been no confidence-building measure from the West, and thus Iran sees no reason to alter its policy.

Vaez: This blame game is a two-way street. Not only does the Iranian government refuse to abide by the UN Security Council resolutions, it employs an empty rhetoric to brag about its nuclear achievements. Why the bluster about building 10 new enrichment facilities, when they can’t even maintain the production rate of their current centrifuges?

Mousavian: I agree that it takes two to tango. But let us review the events of the last three months to better understand the posturing of both sides. First, Iran allowed an IAEA team led by deputy director general Herman Nackaerts to visit Iran’s heavy water facilities and centrifuge production and R&D centers. This initiative goes even beyond the Additional Protocol. During this visit, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoun Abbasi, personally apprised Nackaerts of Iran’s receptiveness to put the country’s nuclear program under ‘full IAEA supervision’ for five years, provided that sanctions against Iran are lifted. The second development was Ahmadinejad’s offer during his trip to New York to attend the annual UN General Assembly meeting. He signaled Iran’s readiness to immediately stop uranium enrichment to 20 percent level, if Iran is given fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. This was an immensely important move to demonstrate that Iran is not seeking highly enriched uranium. Iran’s ambassador at the IAEA and the foreign minister reiterated the offer numerous times in the ensuing weeks. Finally, Iran’s third goodwill gesture was the release of two American hikers, accused of espionage, after two years imprisonment in Iran. It is essential to note that none of these initiatives could have seen the light of the day if the Supreme Leader had not given the green light for their implementation. Now, let’s analyze the reaction of the West to these overtures from Iran. The United States accused Iran of plotting to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, based on flimsy evidence. The European Union expanded its Iran sanctions list to include 29 officials accused of ‘human rights violations’. The US Congress proposed new bills that would impose more unilateral sanctions on Iran and prohibit US diplomats from communicating with their Iranian counterparts. And finally, the IAEA released its most damning report on the alleged military dimension of Iran’s nuclear activities amid international media’s hysteria. Given these dynamics, is it realistic to expect that Iranian decision makers should trust the Western countries and their intentions? In reality, the West is pushing Iran to close the door on nuclear diplomacy, in the fear that it is a guise for regime change. This path will, regrettably, lead to confrontation…

…

Mousavian: Despite all the disappointments, Iran has never closed the door to diplomacy. Even under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his controversial holocaust-denial narrative, Iran has offered several overtures to the West. President Ahmadinejad wrote official letters to Presidents Bush and Obama, but received no response. In 2007, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, signed a modality agreement with the IAEA’s [then-] director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, under which Iran clarified all the remaining issues, including the alleged studies on nuclear arms. Regardless of Iran’s level of cooperation and overtures, however, Tehran’s efforts have never been sufficient for Washington. I believe that there should be a two-pronged approach to diplomacy. Two packages should be prepared in parallel. The first package should be negotiated between Iran and the five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, or P5+1, to resolve the nuclear issue. The following essential criteria should be considered for the success of these negotiations: First, the end game should be clear from the beginning. For Iran, that optimal outcome is Western recognition of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment under the NPT. For the West, the outcome should be maximum transparency and cooperation from Iran, according to the NPT. If suspension of enrichment is the Western goal, the impasse will persist. Nearly 8,000 centrifuges are now spinning in Iran. It is unrealistic to expect the Iranians to close down their facilities and ask thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians to sit idle. The West should come to terms with the fact that the horse of enrichment has left the barn. If non-diversion is the goal, diplomacy can succeed. The second package should be a comprehensive package, to be discussed between Tehran and Washington directly. The nuclear issue would never be resolved unless Iran and the United States start to simultaneously address their long list of grievances. Only then could a face-saving solution be within reach”…

The Wall Street Journal reported from the IAEA Board of Governor’s meeting in Vienna, additionally, that in direct response to the latest IAEA report “The Obama administration pressed Iran to account for a discrepancy of nearly 20 kilograms in its reporting to the United Nations’ nuclear agency on how much natural uranium metal it has in its stockpile … Natural uranium metal can specifically be utilized as a surrogate material to conduct simulated tests of nuclear detonations, according to U.S. officials. It can also be used to produce high-explosive weapons, such as armor-piercing rockets. The IAEA calculated 20 kilos more than Iran had reported … ‘This in many ways could prove the most direct link between Iran’s military activities and its stockpile of nuclear materials’, said an American official. Nuclear experts said the IAEA has differed with Iran before about the amounts of nuclear materials it possesses. It some cases, they said, Tehran has even overestimated the amount of enriched uranium it has produced. But the agency and Iran have in the past worked to resolve their differences. The IAEA’s report said the agency believes Iran has conducted some simulated tests of nuclear detonations. Natural uranium metals, these experts said, have many of the same properties as the highly enriched uranium used in a nuclear bomb, but without the fissile reaction”.

The WSJ story says that the IAEA “study concluded that Iran has worked to develop nuclear-tipped midrange missiles and bomb-triggering systems. It also cited the discrepancy between Iran’s reporting of its natural uranium metal stockpile and what IAEA inspectors have verified”.  This WSJ report can be read in full here.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting here that the U.S. will, however, unilaterally implement additional sanctions against Iran that will target the “petrochemical sector”.

A  Reuters “Exclusive” reports that “sources said Washington wanted to send a strong signal after the U.N. nuclear watchdog issued a November 8 report saying Iran appeared to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be secretly carrying out related research. The sources, who spoke on condition that they not be named, said the sanctions could be unveiled as early as Monday. They said the United States was looking to find a way to bar foreign companies from aiding Iran’s petrochemical industry with the threat of depriving them access to the U.S. market”.  This Reuters “Exclusive” is posted here.

The WSJ noted, however, that “The U.S. isn’t expected to directly sanction Iran’s central bank, as many on Capitol Hill have demanded”…

A CHANGE AT THE TOP

Yesterday, the IAEA Director-General, Yukiya Amano, told journalists that “It is clear that Iran has a case to answer … We have to alert the world before nuclear proliferation actually takes place”. This is reported by Reuters, here.

UPDATE: Seymour Hersh wrote a comment in The New Yorker, here, on 18 November that:

“I’ve been reporting on Iran and the bomb for The New Yorker for the past decade, with a focus on the repeatedly inability of the best and the brightest of the Joint Special Operations Command to find definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons production program in Iran. The goal of the high-risk American covert operations was to find something physical—a ‘smoking calutron’, as a knowledgeable official once told me—to show the world that Iran was working on warheads at an undisclosed site, to make the evidence public, and then to attack and destroy the site. But how definitive, or transformative, were the findings [in the new report] ? The IAEA said it had continued in recent years ‘to receive, collect and evaluate information relevant to possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program’ and, as a result, it has been able ‘to refine its analysis’. The net effect has been to create ‘more concern’. But Robert Kelley, a retired IAEA director and nuclear engineer who previously spent more than thirty years with the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons program, told me that he could find very little new information in the IAEA report. He noted that hundreds of pages of material appears to come from a single source: a laptop computer, allegedly supplied to the IAEA by a Western intelligence agency, whose provenance could not be established. Those materials, and others, ‘were old news’, Kelley said, and known to many journalists. ‘I wonder why this same stuff is now considered “new information” by the same reporters’ … The report did note that its on-site camera inspection process of Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment facilities—mandated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory—’continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material’. In other words, all of the low enriched uranium now known to be produced inside Iran is accounted for; if highly enriched uranium is being used for the manufacture of a bomb, it would have to have another, unknown source. The shift in tone at the IAEA seems linked to a change at the top. The IAEA’s report had extra weight because the Agency has had a reputation for years as a reliable arbiter on Iran. Mohammed ElBaradei, who retired as the IAEA’s Director General two years ago, was viewed internationally, although not always in Washington, as an honest broker—a view that lead to the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. ElBaradei’s replacement is Yukiya Amano of Japan. Late last year, a classified U.S. Embassy cable from Vienna, the site of the I.A.E.A. headquarters, described Amano as being ‘ready for prime time’. According to the cable, which was obtained by WikiLeaks, in a meeting in September, 2009, with Glyn Davies, the American permanent representative to the IAEA, said, ‘Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the group of developing countries], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program’. The cable added that Amano’s ‘willingness to speak candidly with U.S. interlocutors on his strategy … bodes well for our future relationship’. It is possible, of course, that Iran has simply circumvented the reconnaissance efforts of America and the IAEA, perhaps even building Dick Cheney’s nightmare: a hidden underground nuclear-weapons fabrication facility. Iran’s track record with the IAEA has been far from good: its leadership began construction of its initial uranium facilities in the nineteen-eighties without informing the Agency, in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. Over the next decade and a half, under prodding from ElBaradei and the West, the Iranians began acknowledging their deceit and opened their enrichment facilities, and their records, to IAEA inspectors. The new report, therefore, leaves us where we’ve been since 2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the Axis of Evil—with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program”.

THE IAEA RESOLUTION WAS MILD — BUT THE PRESSURE ON IRAN WILL RACHET UP

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement from Washington after the IAEA vote in Vienna that:

“The world has sent a clear and unified message to Tehran that it is deeply troubled by the evidence revealed in last week’s report by Director General Amano. This report supplied the clearest confirmation of what the United States has long believed – that, despite its constant denials, Iran’s government has pursued technologies and equipment that could only be applied to a nuclear weapons program. Iran has said that it seeks nuclear power solely for peaceful purposes. However, the Director General’s report and today’s action by the IAEA Board of Governors underscore that the international community does not find Iran’s claims credible. The P5+1 countries have affirmed Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program but make clear that with that right comes responsibilities – responsibilities Iran has yet to fulfill. The P5+1 remains ready to engage with Iran if Iran is genuinely prepared to engage in serious negotiations, where Iran can choose to rebuild international confidence in the nature of its nuclear program”.

Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution condemning an alleged plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington. The UNGA resolution doesn’t specifically name Iran, but the U.S. accused Iran of being behind the plot — an accusation which has met considerable scepticism. Still, the resolution — which was co-sponsored by Saudi Arabia + others — called on Iran “to comply with all of its obligations under international law”.

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, told the UNGA that:

“last month the United States disrupted a terrorist plot to assassinate the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States. This plot did more than just target the ambassador of a single country. It struck at one of the most sacred principles governing relations among states: the safety and protection of diplomats. Every single member of the international community has an interest in forcefully condemning such heinous acts. Given the nature of this plot, it cannot be seen as just a simple criminal act. Attacks on internationally protected persons have long been understood as emblematic acts of international terrorism. The United States therefore strongly supports and cosponsors Saudi Arabia’s draft resolution to deplore this plot. This resolution will send the message that attacks on internationally protected persons are unacceptable. While this resolution expresses our collective abhorrence at the known details of the plot, it also restates and reinforces principles that are essential to the functioning of diplomacy. It is a measured and appropriate response. A fair and transparent judicial process is now underway in the United States to prosecute one person arrested in connection with this plot. If adopted, this resolution will directly support that process by promoting international cooperation to bring to justice all those who are responsible. In the meantime, we cannot let this plot go unanswered. To do so would suggest that acts like these are within the bounds of acceptable behavior to resolve international conflicts“.

Ambassador Rice’s remarks are posted here. She did not mention Iran by name…

U.S. Politician “Mitt Romney: IF WE REELECT BARACK OBAMA, IRAN WILL HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON”

But, in Washington after the UNGA vote, the White House Press Secretary said “The widespread support for this resolution, which was co-sponsored by UN members from all regions of the world, sends a strong message to the Iranian government that the international community will not tolerate the targeting of diplomats. We will continue to work closely with our allies and partners around the world to ensure that Iran understands that such outrageous acts only deepen Iran’s isolation”. This statement is posted here.

UPDATE: In his comment in The New Yorker on 18 November, Seymour Hersh reported on a public American political debate in which “Iran figured prominently.  Hersh wrote that: Mitt Romney called the state of Iran’s nuclear program Obama’s ‘greatest failing, from a foreign-policy standpoint’ and added, ‘Look, one thing you can know … and that is if we reëlect Barack Obama Iran will have a nuclear weapon’.”

Whatever that means…[it is ambiguous, no?]

Meanwhile, Matthew Lee of Inner City Press [@innercitypress] has Tweeted that “At #UN As US @AmbassadorRice Lauds #Saudi Plot GA Vote, Not Only the Veto but Abstentions by #IBSA [India, Brazil, South Africa] Blocked #UNSC Action”

He has written a blog post about this, published here, in which he argues that “While 106 countries voted in favor, 40 abstained, including Security Council members India, Brazil and South Africa, and the nine voting no connoted a veto in the Security Council. Considering these votes of major nations, the vote was not as ‘overwhelming’ as the resolution’s proponents made out. It seems to explain why they went to the General Assembly and not the Security Council”.

What does it say?

It can be read in full here: here.

It starts right out with this statement, rebuffing Iran’s efforts to negotiate or wheedle an arrangement [it's been called "buying time"] to get a better deal, rather than a new [this would be the 7th] round of sanctions either through the UN Security Council, or enacted unilaterally by those states who feel the strongest about this matter:
“The Security Council has affirmed that the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions are binding on Iran. The relevant provisions of the aforementioned Security Council resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and are mandatory, in accordance with the terms of those resolutions”.

Here’s the immediate diplomatic deal — all of this is spelled right up front in the IAEA report”
“In a letter dated 26 May 2011, H.E. Dr Fereydoun Abbasi, Vice President of Iran and Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), informed the Director General that Iran would be prepared to receive relevant questions from the Agency on its nuclear activities after a declaration by the Agency that the work plan (INFCIRC/711) had been fully implemented and that the Agency would thereafter implement safeguards in Iran in a routine manner. In his reply of 3 June 2011, the Director General
informed Dr Abbasi that the Agency was neither in a position to make such a declaration, nor to conduct safeguards in Iran in a routine manner, in light of concerns about the existence in Iran of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. On 19 September 2011, the Director General met Dr Abbasi in Vienna, and discussed issues related to the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement and other relevant obligations. In a letter dated 30 September 2011, the Agency reiterated its invitation to Iran to reengage with the Agency on the outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and the actions required of Iran to resolve those issues. In a letter dated 30 October 2011, Dr Abbasi referred to his previous discussions with the Director General and expressed the will of Iran ‘to remove ambiguities, if any‘, suggesting that the Deputy Director General for Safeguards (DDG-SG), should visit Iran for discussions. In his reply, dated 2 November 2011, the Director General indicated his preparedness to send the DDG-SG to ‘discuss the issues identified’ in his forthcoming report to the Board“…

The IAEA has expressed somewhat more concern than before — but they’re not hysterical with worry. They gave greater details about some of the allegations contained in earlier IAEA reports on Iran’s nuclear program up to 2003 [when the U.S. invaded neighboring Iraq], at which point Iran was believed to have largely stopped it. But, Iran has apparently maintained some kind of program to continue to monitor the results of its earlier research.

The report says “Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information”.

It also says that “While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs [locations outside facilities where nuclear material is customarily used + a footnote tells us that "All of the LOFs are situated within hospitals".] declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing. Given the concerns identified above, Iran is requested to engage substantively with the Agency
without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme as identified in the Annex to this report.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The IAEA report complains that “The Agency is still awaiting a substantive response from Iran to Agency requests for further
information in relation to announcements made by Iran concerning the construction of ten new uranium enrichment facilities, the sites for five of which, according to Iran, have been decided, and the construction of one of which was to have begun by the end of the last Iranian year (20 March 2011) or the start of this Iranian year. In August 2011, Dr Abbasi was reported as having said that Iran did not need to build new enrichment facilities during the next two years.25 Iran has not provided information, as requested by the Agency in its letter of 18 August 2010, in connection with its announcement on 7 February 2010 that it possessed laser enrichment technology”.

It also complains that “Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not
suspended work on all heavy water related projects, including the construction of the heavy water moderated research reactor, the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40 Reactor), which is subject to Agency safeguards”.

[A footnote tell us that: "The United Nations Security Council has adopted the following resolutions on Iran: 1696 (2006); 1737 (2006); 1747 (2007); 1803 (2008); 1835 (2008); and 1929 (2010)".]

__________________________________________________________________________________

An important annex discusses “Possible Military Dimensions to Iran’s Nuclear Program” … which we will look at in another post.

The choice, for our Quote of the Day series, however, will go to his remarks explicitly saying that “several Palestinian terrorists” are responsible — though no one has yet been charged, much less tried or convicted — for the bloody murders, a week ago, of five members of a Israeli settler family in their home in the Itamar settlement in the northern West Bank, not far from Nablus.

It was the first time that Netanyahu — or any Israeli government official, for that matter — had made such a specific accusation, though in the media and among the general population, this was the immediate and enduring assumption.

Netanyahu’s explanation segues into an argument about the settlements, and about who wants peace more…

Here are the exact words, from the CNN transcript, posted :

“MORGAN: Prime Minister, there was a horrific murder of the Fogel family last week. The details of which are chilling to read. What was your reaction to that, and where are you with the investigation into the perpetrators?

NETANYAHU: This was horrific. It was savagery. I mean, several Palestinian terrorists came into the home of this Jewish family in the West Bank. They stabbed a three-month old baby girl in the heart, cut her throat. They stabbed her four-year old brother in the heart, cut him in the throat. They stabbed the father with another child and stabbed the mother and left them dying in their blood. And then I visited the family and I saw the 12-year-old girl, a sister who came home and saw this unbelievable massacre. So obviously the first response is sheer horror. And my second response was to send a message to the settlers to contain their rage and not respond because we’d have a cycle of reprisals so I asked them to – not to take the law in their own hands, not to have vigilante actions because this would – could generate a blood bath. I thought that was important to stop that. But we’re now looking for the killers. We’ll find them.

MORGAN: Are you making progress?

NETANYAHU: Some. Some. I think we’ll find them.

MORGAN: There was – to put it mildly – a raised eyebrow collectively around the world. First, of the horrifying nature of this attack, but secondly at your response. The premise of, they murder, we build. You ordered the building of 500 more building settlements. It’s a strange moral equivalence, Prime Minister. I mean, part of the problem that you face now in Israel is perception around the world. Your PR is not good, as you know. When people heard about what happened, I think the international community completely on
your side and the people of Israel. When they see you immediately ordering more settlements, I’m sure you did it to calm down the people as you say, a lot of that sympathy erode. People think, come on, there’s got to be a better way of responding to this kind of thing than doing that.

NETANYAHU: Well I wanted to send three messages. The first one I told you about, that is a message of restraint to the settlers. The second is a message to the terrorists. I was telling them, I know you think you’re going to uproot us with this savagery, with the violence, with terror. You’re not going to uproot us. So you kill us, you want to drive us into the sea, that’s not going to happen. You only way we’ll have a settlement is through peaceful negotiations. So you kill, we’ll build. But coincidentally I chose to build in the large populated areas that are going to stay in Israel anyway. And not 500 new settlements but 500 apartments, which is very different. And third, I wanted to send a message to the international community. I said to the international community that rushes to condemn Israel for every building that is build. You know, a Jew builds an apartment in the Jewish homeland. What a terrible crime. But they seldom go and condemn this kind of savagery without any ands, ifs and buts and I wanted that condemnation. I was glad to see –
…
MORGAN: But is that true? I mean, does the international community really not just condemn that kind of outrage out of hand? Because I read that they did. And the point about the settlements is surely that you are trying to get a peace process to work. You’re trying to get to some settlement. The Middle East quartet only yesterday said they’ve almost given up hope that peace is achievable at the moment…
…

MORGAN: But doesn’t history need people to be courageous?

NETANYAHU: Yes. Yes, it does. But peace requires two to tango. And what I’m – what I said – suggested the simplest thing is exactly what you’re said. I said to Abu Mazen who was flying around in the world – the Palestinian president – I said, don’t fly around the world. You want to make peace? Ramallah, where you said, is 10 minutes away from Jerusalem where we’re sitting right now. I’m willing to come to you. You can come here. Let’s sit down, shut the room, you know, basically sit down until smoke comes out. That’s the way you make peace. That’s how we made peace with Egypt. That’s how we made peace with Jordan.

MORGAN: Why isn’t it happening?

NETANYAHU: Because I think the Palestinian society is split into two – those who are openly calling for Israel’s destruction like Hamas, and those who are not calling openly for Israel’s destruction but refuse to confront those who do. And that’s the Palestinian Authority. I think they’re timid, I think they’re afraid to actually stand up to these killers. And I think that they’re afraid, maybe for their own sake, for their own political hides (ph), sometimes for their own physical safety. And they don’t take that necessary plunge…
…
NETANYAHU: Well the legacy I want is that I hope secure the life the Jewish state and its future. We did have – we did act precipitously. We walked out of Gaza. We uprooted. Talk about concessions. We uprooted 10,000 Israelis out of Gaza, just eliminated the settlements that were supposed to be the obstacle to peace. We walked out, Iran walked in. We didn’t get peace. We walked out of Lebanon, every last inch. We walked out, Iran walked in. From Lebanon they fired 6,000 rockets at us. This is a country the size of New Jersey. From Gaza, after we walked out, they fired 6,000 rockets at us. Now, they say, ‘Just walk out of the West Bank. Make the concession. Come on, do it again, a third time’. We could be in a position where we can’t live. So my concern is, I want peace for Israel but I want a peace that we can defend and I want a peace that will hold. And I know that that’s peace with security. I know that’s what we have to insist – and I insist – unabashedly so – on peace with strong security arrangements. One of the leading European statesmen told me the other day – I was sitting where you are – well in that couch. He said, you know, three months ago when you said in the context of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians that you would need to stay along the Jordan River because you never know what would happen on the other side. The Jordan River, mind you, is all of the distance of the Washington beltway, greater Paris from here. Nearby. So we’d have to have some line on the Jordan River to prevent Iran from penetrating into Israel and placing another 100,000 rockets aimed at our cities. He said, people didn’t understand what you’re talking about. He said, now after the convulsions, this earthquake people understand your insistence of security a lot better. So I would say the first condition of peace, we’ll make concessions, obviously. We’ll have to make territorial concessions and that’s hard. This is our ancestral homeland. This is the land of the bible…
…
In the case of the Palestinian society, Hamas openly declares that it wants to wipe out not the heads of the Israeli government, but every Israeli. Wipe away the Jewish state. They openly say so. Their constitution –
…
MORGAN: But isn’t this a good – ironically we’re sitting here now with this part of the region being one of the calmer places. Isn’t that the perfect time to make this happen?

NETANYAHU: If you can be sure of who your partner will be tomorrow. You’re not even sure of that. You want to make sure that you have solid (INAUDIBLE) of security and you also want mutual reconciliation.
…
We recognize the rights of the Palestinians for a state of their own. Even though they’re sitting in part of our ancestral homeland, it’s very painful to do that. But I’ve been doing it. I’ve been saying it. But they refuse to say that they recognize a Jewish state, a nation state for the Jewish people. I’m talking about – I’m not talking about the Hamas, I’m talking about the Palestinian authority that should confront Hamas and confront their own people and say, hey, it’s over. We give up the ghost of dismantling Israel or dissolving Israel or flooding it with refugees. It’s over. No more war, no more bloodshed. Just as Sadat said. I want to hear that clear statement but I’m willing, I’ve already made those statements. And so the problem you have in the international community is that the Palestinians do not want to put a finality to the conflict, do not want to say that a Palestinian state will be an end to a conflict and not a stage in the dissolution of Israel. Now, they speak peace to the outside but not to their own people. To their own people – on the day that these people – this family was savagely brutalized – brutally murdered – babies were stabbed – on that day, the Palestinian authority had a square called al-Bireh, which is a suburb of Ramallah, in name of a terrorist who murdered 37 Israelis on a bus, including 12 children. To the outside world they speak peace. Internally they foster a culture of hate…
…
NETANYAHU: If I sign a peace, people of Israel will follow me. But you’ve got to give us the two elements of peace that are required to
have a real peace, not a fake peace. The real peace requires security and the real peace requires that you actually reconcile yourself to a Jewish state here, permanently. This is what we want…
…
The Palestinian economy has been growing at 10 percent … Gaza is growing now at 17 percent because we lifted all the restrictions…

MORGAN: Yes, but you wouldn’t want your family living there, would you?

NETANYAHU: No, of course not. But certainly I think the people of Gaza would like to be relieved of this Hamas tyranny and this medievalism. But as far as the West Bank, I changed the policy. In fact, (INAUDIBLE) what you say. I thought that it’s important to add, in addition to security and recognition, to have prosperity as a third pillar of peace. So I’ve been – I removed hundreds of road blocks, check points and so on and the result is that the Palestinian economy and the West Bank has grown at 10 percent, which is – which for me is very hopeful because I like to see apartment towers sprout out of the soil of the West Bank of Ramallah and not missiles. And I think this is an important component of peace. But the economic peace is not a substitute for political
negotiations. And on day one of forming my government, I called on President Abbas and Abu Mazen to come here and talk people [should this read, "peace"?]. The second step that I took, it’s a tough decision, I froze construction in the settlement. I know this is not the issue, I know construction in the settlements are not a real issue, they’re an artificial issue. The settlements cover only one or two percent of the territory of the West Bank and a few hundred apartments in this one percent is meaningless. But it’s become an issue. I said, all right. You know, if it makes it easier for you, I’ll freeze construction for 10 months. They didn’t come. And when they finally came, they bolted after two weeks. I recognize the principle of two states for two people. I agreed to another extension, three months. I did all these things. And what do I find? That the Palestinians can walk away from the negotiations, make pre-conditions, call public square in honor of terrorists and now they’re talking about a national unity with Hamas that calls for our destruction. How can you be for peace with Israel and peace with Hamas that calls for our destruction? … It’s one or the other. Not both.
…
NETANYAHU: You can make peace with an enemy, if the enemy abandons the idea of destroying you. That is the critical test. Democracies fail to understand what I just said. In the 1930s, with Hitler, they failed to recognize that. He said, well, I’m willing to sign this, or that, document. But in reality they could ascertain easily that he was dead set on conquest and annihilation. I think we face, in the Middle East, an ideology that is absolutely-absolutely opposed to peace and coexistence, and that is Hamas …
… if Hamas has a constitution, if it tore it up, and if the constitution calls for the annihilation of Israel, not only that but the expansion of radical Islam throughout the region and the world,if they got rid of that, yes, I could contemplate that. If they stopped firing rockets, or importing now, rockets to launch on our cities. They just intercepted some Iranian rockets yesterday that were intended for Hamas. If they stopped terrorism, if they stopped calling for our eradication, yes, of course, we would be happy to talk with them. But the fact is that Hamas has not stopped being Hamas. Hamas continues to call for our liquidation. So what am I going to negotiate with them? The method of our decapitation? The method of their exterminating us? Of course not. Any country would take a stand against somebody that is completely committed to its obliteration. And that was not the case in Northern Ireland, because the IRA never wanted to exterminate Britain…”

OK.

So, now, after all that, who murdered the five members of the Fogel family in Itamar? And, why?

The Swiss Government refers to these talks in the European fashion: E3+3, rather than P5+1.

The Swiss announcement said that “The E3+3 delegation will be led by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton. The Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, will head the Iranian delegation.
Switzerland also organized the last talks that took place in Geneva on 1 October 2009. Switzerland has always advocated a diplomatic
solution to the Iranian nuclear question”. Switzerland also hosted Iran talks in Geneva in July 2007.

This is reported here.

This is interesting in and of itself – but all the more so because, as Meir Javendar points out here, “Early next week, Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) are scheduled to meet to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme”.

When I attended one round of these Iran and P5+1 talks in Geneva in July 2007, I discovered that the European members had changed
their nametags to read “Iran and 3 + 3″ talks — meaning, Iran plus three European countries [Britain, France and Germany], and three others [USA, Russia and China]…

The UN Security Council has imposed three sets of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran [basically, for not inspiring confidence in its nuclear program] and the U.S. and others have imposed an additional set of unilateral economic sanctions.

UPDATE: The full transcript of the Clinton interview with Kim Ghattas has just arrived by email from the U.S. State Department. Here is the full quote, plus more of interest:

[Kim Ghattas of the BBC] QUESTION: A follow-up question about Iran. On Monday in Geneva, Washington and its partners in the P-5+1 will hold talks with Iran about its nuclear program. You’ve tried this before. You thought it would work last time. Why do you think it will be different now?

SECRETARY CLINTON:” Because I think that Iran has realized since the last meeting, which was in October 2009, that they’re not going to escape pressure from the international community. They were quite surprised to have the entire world decide to impose sanctions. They didn’t think that would happen to them. They’ve been surprised that the United States, European Union, Japan, and others have imposed additional sanctions, and that the vast majority of the nations in the world are honoring those sanctions. We know that they’re having an effect inside Iran. So I think Iran comes to the table with a much more sober assessment of what isolation means, what the impact on their economy has been, and we hope that will cause them to have the kind of serious negotiation we’re seeking”.

QUESTION: But a quick follow-up, if I may. Why not cut to the chase and tell Iran that it can enrich its own uranium on its own territory, since everybody knows that this what is probably the end result.

SECRETARY CLINTON: “Well, we told them that they are entitled to the peaceful use of civil nuclear energy. But they haven’t yet restored the confidence of the international community, to the extent where the international community would feel comfortable allowing them to enrich, which is why with the Bushehr plant that Russia has helped build, Russia is not letting them enrich. Russia is taking the spent fuel out and reprocessing. Iran has to come to the table recognizing that they have lost the confidence of even longtime supporters and allies or those who believed them, took them at face value. They can do this, and then they can enrich uranium at some future date once they have demonstrated that they can do so in a responsible manner in accordance with international obligations”.

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.