Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says the Iranian nation has never sought and will never seek nuclear weapons as it has the capacity to challenge the nuclear-backed influence such powers rely on.

The Leader described the country’s nuclear and technological achievements further in line with national interests and beneficial for the future of the country.

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons,” said Ayatollah Khamenei.

“There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

“If nations are allowed to independently make progress in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace, science, technology and industry, there will be no room left for the tyrannical dominance of world powers,” said the Leader.

“Sanctions have been in place since the victory of the Islamic Revolution while the nuclear issue is a matter of the past few years; therefore the West real problem is with a nation that has decided to be independent.”

Iran's Foreign Ministry has expressed the country’s full readiness to hold talks with the six major powers of the P5+1 group, reiterating the need for all the parties involved to adopt a constructive and positive approach.

He added that the talks are currently underway with a high-ranking IAEA delegation that arrived in Tehran early Monday at Iran's invitation to set the framework for future bilateral cooperation.

We should wait to see the outcome of the visit by the IAEA delegation and its impact on Iran's talks with the P5+1 representatives, the Iranian spokesman said.

He noted that the time and venue of the talks will be determined based on a consensus between the two sides.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman also said the West does not intend to make any attempts to end the 11-month crisis in Syria through peaceful means.

Mehmanparast said that instability in any Middle Eastern country could bring about insecurity in the entire region, calling for negotiations between the Syrian government and opposition parties, the cessation of violence, and a chance for the Syrian government to implement reforms already pledged by President Bashar al-Assad.

The senior Iranian official highlighted that the West does not seek to facilitate an end to the Syrian unrest, but rather pursues its own policy objectives in the key Arab state.

He said if the Western countries were had indeed been interested in peace and stability in Syria, they should have mediated discussions between the Syrian government and the protestors and should have called on all sides to renounce aggression and should have provided the Syrian leadership with sufficient time to undertake the pledged reforms.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman has harshly denounced the recent sacrilege act of desecration of the Holy Qur'an by US-led forces at a detention center library adjoining NATO's main base in eastern Afghanistan.

Mehmanparast said that the sacrilegious move stems from ignorance of the occupying forces about cultural and religious values and rituals observed in Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

The ongoing human rights abuses and violations of the Afghan nation's rights originate from the persistence of foreign military presence in Afghanistan and the unaccountability of US-led forces for numerous unlawful acts they commit in the war-battered Asian country, the senior Iranian official pointed out.

Mehmanparst also demanded the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan as the only viable step to restore peace and stability in the country. He expressed optimism that Afghans would resolve their own issues once they take full control of state affairs.

First Crack in Western Hawkish Alliance against Iran

Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)

The first major crack in the western alliance against Iran has now surfaced in the UK's House of Commons by a rebellious Conservative back bencher who has for the first time in a western country proposed a motion against the hawkish western Iran policy. The anti-war groups activists and peace activists all around the world will see this as a promising sign to build a strong lobbying and media campaign to successfully oppose the war drive on Iran.

For the first time in many years, the UK Parliament has held a debate specifically on Iran. The Motion tabled by the Conservative MP, John Baron (Basildon and Billericay), secured a debate on 20/02/2012 on a Motion calling on the government to rule out the use of force against Iran, arguing for calm and vigorous diplomacy as the only sensible option.

John Baron intends “to divide the house to test the view and will of Parliament”. He states that “The catalyst for the latest round of condemnation against Iran has been the IAEA’s November report. But close reading reveals no ‘smoking gun’. There is no evidence of attempts to produce nuclear weapons, or of a decision to do so. Much is made of Western intelligence reports – but Iraq should have told us to be careful on this front.”

In his interview on BBC Radio 4’ s Today program on February 20th , Baron urged the west to recognize the Islamic Republic as a super power in the region and opt for a rapprochement with Iran in the style of Richard Nixon who visited China to end the long term US hostility against the country.

This development clearly reveals the gigantic hoax in the Western allegations of Iranian nuclear threat that the US and UK, while constantly prodded by Israel, have used in recent years to once again deceive the world nearly ten years after their fabricated and false dossiers paved the way for the criminal and Illegal invasion of Iraq.

In fact, many British and Western parliamentarians who voted for war on Iraq, claimed afterwards that they had been ‘misled’. The motion by John Baron reflects this sentiment and highlights the disarray in the British and western political establishment.

Not only do the majority of the International community as organised in the 118 nations of the non-aligned movement defend Iran's rights for a civilian nuclear programme and criticise the western pressures on Iran, but we now see that the supposed unity of the western alliance against Iran is actually fragile and can be cracked by further public pressure.

It is the responsibility of the antiwar organisations and peace activists to mobilise the public opinion on British Parliamentarians to abandon their aggressive stance on Iran.

Systematic and orchestrated lobbying of parliamentarians is therefore crucial to avert the gathering tide of sanctions, covert war and military attack on Iran. Parliamentarians and key decision makers must be publicly questioned by groups of activists and individuals in their constituencies and held accountable for their positions and their evidence on which they might support sanctions, interference or military strike on Iran.

The lobbying work should be backed up by a systematic campaign to challenge the western biased media which played a decisive role in manipulating public opinion and paving the path to the invasion of Iraq. Well-informed and sustained media work such as writing letters to editors and journalists to challenge lies and distortions, writing articles, and giving media interviews are crucial in mobilising public opinion against sanctions and war and towards negotiations without pre-conditions. CASMII’s Key Reasons Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, provides a regularly updated record of the issues of US-Iran stand-off.

In February 2003, in response to the huge and unprecedented anti-war demonstrations that engulfed the world days before Iraq was invaded, the NY Times, acknowledged the existence of “two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion”. Those demonstrations, including the two million strong demonstration in London did not stop the war, but created fractures and fears in the ranks of the decision makers. For history not to be repeated we must educate and win the public and mobilise it to win parliamentarians.

Local and national antiwar organisations are vital for building a strong lobbying and media campaign against the war drive on Iran. On 4th February 2012, Anti-war activists in many cities in the US demonstrated against sanctions, military attack, covert operations and domestic interference in Iran. CASMII for many years has been consistently campaigning against domestic interference and any type of sanctions as destructive to Iranian society and a prelude to war. The crushing sanctions on the Iranian economy and the massive military build-up in the Persian Gulf have prompted the main anti-war organisations in the UK and the US to now rally around the slogans of No Sanctions, No interference, No assassinations alongside the slogan of No War on Iran.

CASMII calls upon all concerned Iranian and non-Iranians to urgently join and build national campaigns in the UK (Stop the War Coalition), the US and other Western countries to mobilise public opinion against the sanctions and war drive on Iran by building a strong lobbying and media campaign. A peaceful resolution to the stand-off between the West and Iran would benefit all geopolitical parties involved and would avoid a doomsday scenario in which there will be no winners.

Source: Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)
http://www.campaigniran.org/

Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has expressed confidence that relations between Iran and Europe will be restored as the two sides are ‘complementary’ to each other.

Neither European countries nor Iran can disregard the need for mutual cooperation because we are both complementary to each other, Salehi said.

The top Iranian diplomat further said that enhanced economic ties with all countries is among the priorities of Iran's foreign policy, stressing that Tehran attaches importance to bolstering relations with neighboring countries as well as the member states of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO).

Iran’s Foreign Minister also said the recent explosions in Thailand, Georgia and India are attempts by the Israeli regime to mar Tehran’s ties with friendly states.

“These are plots they (Israelis) have hatched to damage our relations with friendly countries. This is also a method to create media hype against Iran,” Salehi said.

The Iranian foreign minister said the Israeli regime, which has legitimized state terrorism and proudly announces that it has assassinated Palestinian and Hezbollah officials, claims that Iran has committed such actions in countries with which it enjoys very good relations.

Referring to US allegations on Iran’s plot to assassinate Saudi Ambassador to Washington Adel Al-Jubeir as unfounded and ridiculous, Salehi said the suspect was supposed to be tried last December but there were never any reports about the trial.

Iran’s Foreign Minister also said that the venue of Iran’s upcoming talks with the world powers will be determined by the weekend.

“Turkey has announced preparedness to host the talks. However, some other countries may do the same. God willing, on Saturday after other parties announce their readiness then Mr. Jalili and Mrs. Ashton will come to an agreement on the venue for the Iran-P5+1 (the US, UK, France, Russia, and China plus Germany) talks. Hopefully by Saturday or Sunday this will be determined,” Said Salehi.

“In my opinion, we can have the meeting most probably in Istanbul,” he added.

Iran's Foreign Minister also said the Islamic Republic is currently constructing a fuel complex despite efforts by Western powers to undermine Iranian nuclear achievements.

Iran is among the few countries that possess the capacity to construct a fuel complex, so Western countries were caught by a surprise discovering Iran's access to the technology, Salehi said.

Iran requested a 20-percent-enriched fuel supply from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) some two years ago, but they began imposing conditions on the legitimate demand, leaving us with no other option than to produce the fuel on our own, he added.

The minister also dismissed Western media claims about Iran's inability to produce 20-percent enriched fuel and emphasized that Tehran attaches significance to its political reputation and will not resort to making claims on an issue that is beyond its capabilities.

He also stated that Iran can currently produce the 20-percent-enriched uranium for the production of nuclear fuel plates and is prepared to export services related to nuclear energy to other countries.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has reiterated Tehran’s determination to continue with its peaceful nuclear program, insisting on the nation’s willingness to even deal with “the worst-case scenario.”

“Since we believe that we are right, we do not have the slightest doubt in the pursuit of our nuclear program. Therefore, we plan to move ahead with vigor and confidence and we do not take much heed of [the West’s] propaganda warfare. Even in the worse-case scenario, we remain prepared,” said Salehi.

He lashed out at contradictory positions of Western governments towards Iran’s civilian nuclear program and said while they welcome Iran’s readiness for talks with the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US plus Germany), they raise baseless allegations against the country and resort to aggressive remarks against Tehran.

“Since they have an arrogant nature, they have not learned to engage in political interactions with prudent and humane manners,” Salehi pointed out.

Salehi called on the West to adopt a policy of dialogue rather than confrontation and expressed optimism that “Western countries, as a whole, will amend their policies towards Iran.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing a sensible policy that is based on cooperating with all nations of the world, as far as peace, global security and stability is concerned, he emphasized.

Iran’s top diplomat also touched on the recent alleged anti-Israeli attacks in Georgia, India and Thailand, and described them as part of a plot hatched by Tel Aviv, intending to damage Iran’s relations with friendly countries.

Salehi argued that the Israeli regime has assassinated many Muslim officials and nuclear scientists across the world and questioned the viability of anti-Iran claims by a regime “whose hands are stained with the blood of other people” and “has legitimized state terrorism.”

Iran's Foreign Minister has also said that Iran will go to talks with the major powers with a positive attitude and seeks to hold negotiations based on the “win-win” principle.

“In the talks, we are seeking to find a way out of Iran’s nuclear issue in such a way that it would be win-win. We understand the other side’s situation and are aware that the other side is seeking to come out of the issue honorably. We are also ready to” help them in this regard, Salehi stated, adding, “We will go to the meeting with a positive attitude and good will. I hope that the other side will show good will as well.”

He added, “In the normal course of events, the venue for talks will be Istanbul, and we are waiting for European Union foreign policy chief's letter so that the date can be determined.”

“As we have already announced, in the letter that we wrote to Ms. Ashton, we stated that we are ready to engage in negotiations. We are waiting for the other side’s response,” Salehi stated.

Paul R. Pillar

Delineating the nation's interests starts with the basics: the security and well-being of our citizens in our own homeland. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—those sorts of things. There is no controversy about this, and the nation would and should spare no costs or risks to uphold these core interests. National interests go far beyond the core to include as well many other things overseas. But few of those other things are so vital that they would be worth incurring every conceivable cost or risk to bring them about. Some things that are not in U.S. interests the United States may need to live with, because there is no way to avoid them short of measures that would damage U.S. interests even more.

Congress, as representative of the American people, has a proper and important role in declaring what is or is not in the interests of the United States. But if such declarations are not to be a useless and potentially endless laundry list of nice-to-haves, they need to do a couple of other things. They need to explain why something is in U.S. interests, preferably by relating it to the core life-and-liberty stuff. And they need to stipulate to what lengths, and at what costs and risks, the United States should go to pursue the objective in question.

A sense-of-the Senate resolution on Iran that Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, along with numerous co-sponsors, introduced last week does neither of those things. The key operative language in the resolution “affirms that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability” and “rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran,” further calling on the president to “oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.” The resolution's preambulary language, with nineteen “whereas” clauses, runs through a familiar litany of things people don't like about Iran, from the Iranian president's anti-Israeli rhetoric to weird alleged plots to assassinate ambassadors in Washington. But nothing in the resolution identifies how or why containment of a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran would be different from the status quo in any way that would damage a “vital national interest” of the United States.

It would be easy to imagine a similar resolution about the Soviet Union when it was about to get its first nuclear weapon in the late 1940s. There certainly would be plenty of good material for the preambulary clauses. “Whereas the USSR is ruled by a bloodthirsty dictator who has killed millions and enslaved many more, has used force to subjugate half of Europe,” etc. the Senate “opposes any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Soviet nuclear threat.” George Kennan, rest in peace.

The new resolution—despite ostensibly aiming for an agreement with Iran—would damage the prospects for negotiating any such agreement. The resolution calls for terms that are understandably non-starters for Iran. In referring to “the full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities,” the resolution appears to rule out an Iranian enrichment program under international supervision and inspection, which almost certainly would have to be part of any formula that could gain the agreement of both Iran and the western powers. Incredibly, the resolution also calls for “the verified end of Iran's ballistic missile programs.” This goes beyond any United Nations resolutions on Iran, which talk about nuclear capability of missiles, and even beyond anything ever demanded of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, for which range limits were imposed. It would be understandable if Tehran reads such language as further evidence that the United States is interested not in any negotiated agreement but instead only in regime change. By declaring “nuclear weapons capability” rather than acquisition of a nuclear weapon to be unacceptable, the resolution also blurs red lines in a way that may flash green lights to Israel to launch a military attack on Iran.

This resolution also walks the United States farther down a path to launching its own war against Iran. This stems partly from the resolution's very silence on how far the United States should go to try to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, implying that anything goes. It also stems from the usual way in which declarations of national interests or objectives are subsequently exploited. Such declarations are habitually invoked by those pushing for action, obliterating any distinction between core, defend-at-all-costs interests and other objectives. The exploiters say, “If we agree that this is in our national interest, then why aren't we doing whatever it takes to attain it?”

We have seen this pattern repeatedly. The Iran resolution itself throws back at President Obama his own language about the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran being “unacceptable.” The Washington Post's editorial page, in its constant agitation for more action to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria, does the same with Mr. Obama's call for that regime to end. Something similar also happened in the run-up to the Iraq War. The Iraq Liberation Act, which President Clinton reluctantly signed in 1998, stated that it was the policy of the United States to support “regime change” in Iraq. This legislation did not call for a war—only for increased support to Iraqi opposition groups. But President George W. Bush repeatedly referred to the legislation, and to his Democratic predecessor's signature of it, in his later campaigning for a war. The Congressional resolution in 2002 that authorized a war also referred back to the 1998 measure as a basis for doing so.

The prospect is at least as great for the same sort of thing to happen with Iran. The shape of public debate on the issue, with much talk about maybe having “no choice” but to use military force if diplomacy and sanctions fail, has already set the stage for this. A resolution declaring a nuclear-free Iran to be a national interest—and a “vital” one, no less—will be repeatedly invoked, as if this were on the same level as Americans' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What will not be mentioned is that the difference between a nuclear-free Iran and a contained, nuclear-weapons-capable Iran is nowhere near that level.

After the sorry performance of Congress in the months before the Iraq War (Thomas Ricks wrote in his book on the war that “the failures in Congress were at once perhaps the most important and the least noticed”), one might hope that members would be more careful about flinging around resolutions with the damaging potential of the one introduced last week. Maybe some members figure what the heck, it's just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution with no legal effect, it doesn't say anything about authorizing a war, and doesn't everyone agree that not having nuclear weapons in Iranian hands would be in U.S. interests? Well, yes—I haven't met anyone who is arguing that an Iranian nuke would on balance be in U.S. interests. And maybe, as die-hard defenders of the Iraq War like to say, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein than with him. But such observations are cop-outs from rigorous thinking about all the U.S. interests at stake and the tradeoffs that entail them.

Perhaps members see this resolution as a cheap way to stay in the good graces of AIPAC, which is promoting the measure. But surely most members are smart enough to understand the political dynamics and likely exploitation of the issue as I have just described. Any who do understand this ought to be ashamed of themselves for facilitating a process that increases the danger of a war that would inflict major damage on some really important U.S. interests.

*Paul R. Pillar is a 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies and a member of the Center for Peace and Security Studies.

Source: The National Interest
http://nationalinterest.org

More By Paul R. Pillar:

*The IAEA's Yawner: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/The_IAEA_s_Yawner.htm

*The Longest War: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/The_Longest_War_3.htm

*Sanctions for What?: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Sanctions_for_What_.htm

Brzezinski, Slaughter Discuss Mideast Challenges That Could Upset Obama Re-Election Plans

Barbara Slavin Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski & Anne-Marie Slaughter

Al-Monitor Washington correspondent Barbara Slavin recently interviewed former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former State Department policy planning chief Anne-Marie Slaughter about the challenges facing the United States in the Middle East during this U.S. presidential election year. Excerpts from those interviews follow:

Zbigniew Brzezinski knows something about dealing with Iranians and his advice to President Barack Obama is this: Don’t start a war with Iran. National security adviser three decades ago when the Carter administration struggled to free U.S. hostages in Iran, Brzezinski says that Obama should not attack Iran’s nuclear sites even if that gives political ammunition to his more hawkish Republican opponents.

Question: Is this a particularly difficult presidential election year given developments in the region?

Brzezinski: The president confronts the challenge of whether to opt for a national foreign policy victory at the cost of presidential defeat or to opt for presidential victory at some significant cost to American foreign policy interests.

Q: You wrote in your new book that the U.S. should not engage in a “solitary military action against Iran or just in cooperation with Israel.” Can you expand on that?

Brzezinski: It’s easier to start a war than to end a war. Secondly, the costs of any conflict with Iran will be borne by the United States both in blood and money.

Q: What would you be doing about Iran?

Brzezinski: I would be on the record that we do not view a military solution as credible or desirable. That doesn’t mean I would be complacent about the Iranian efforts and I certainly support ostracizing them and making it uncomfortable for them economically though not to the point of confronting them with a choice of either abject capitulation or some sort of desperate lashing out on their part.

Even if they [the Iranians] get a single bomb, it means that they are not a threat yet to anyone because they are not suicidal and they know that if they were to use it, they would precipitate consequences to them that would be most grave.

To make that clear, I would issue a public statement that the U.S. will view an Iranian threat or action based on nuclear weapons against any state in the Middle East – Arab or Israeli – as an act against the United States.

Q: Let’s turn to Syria. The Russians have thumbed their noses at us and there is a very difficult humanitarian situation. Do you approve of developing a new ‘coalition of the willing’ to support the opposition at least with humanitarian aid?

Brzezinski: I would tend to follow the advice of the Turks who are the most proximate to the crisis, who probably have the best understanding of it and who have been good allies.

Q: The last in this trio of difficulties involves Egypt. We have this extraordinary situation where the Egyptians are in effect taking American hostages – Americans who were promoting democracy. How would you handle a situation like this?

Brzezinski: What I see in it unfortunately is a wider phenomenon which I have been observing for some months, namely that our influence in the Middle East is dramatically receding.

One basic lesson to draw is not to say we’ll do certain things and then to act like a minor power and abandon the effort when someone objects to it. That kind of record does not produce confidence in American leadership and American steadfastness. America has to be steadfast in its principles which sometimes can be costly… We have to think of our long-range interests and not our immediate political prospects…What really damages is when America wobbles.

Q: On Iran, do you think the Israelis are bluffing to make sure sanctions are really biting or is there really a danger of a conflict this year?

Slaughter: I think there’s a real danger. The overall configuration of Israeli domestic politics and everything else that is happening in the region means they are genuinely debating this question. I don’t think they’ve decided to attack.

Q: What in your mind is the appropriate policy given that Obama got essentially forced into the central bank sanctions by Congress?

Slaughter: I support the idea of a two-track policy. It’s very important to make clear there’s a genuine international concern here and a large part of what these sanctions are doing is signaling that it isn’t just the U.S…On the other hand, we’re in danger of a situation in which we are risking the sanctions being so tough that they close off the negotiating track rather than opening it. That’s a real danger because then we’re left with a game of chicken.

Q: The chances for a pro-active negotiating strategy seem dim in an election year.

Slaughter: There definitely is a willingness to negotiate if they [the Obama administration] think they have a negotiating partner in good faith. The problem has been we’ve come to the table, we’ve cut deals and they’ve [the Iranians] backed off. They’ve used talks to simply delay, delay, delay. If we thought for whatever reason, the Iranians were really ready to deal, this administration will deal despite the election.

The last thing Barack Obama wants is another war in the Middle East. This is madness. His entire administration has been about getting us out of wars in the Middle East and South Asia and just getting us out of land wars period.”

Q: To my mind, Syria is an area where there should be some consensus on getting rid of Bashar and that would be a more effective way of dealing with Iran than going straight at Iran. What are your thoughts on how the process is playing out now?

Slaughter: On Syria I am guardedly optimistic. The opposition has gotten braver and braver and more determined. That was the first thing people did not expect.

Nobody a year ago would have said that the Arab League would condemn it as strongly as they did, then send monitors and then call for his [Bashar al-Assad’s] resignation. That’s just astounding.

The place to watch is the Arab League. They’ve gotten themselves so far into this that there’s no way out other than forcing him [Assad] out.

Q: How do you do that?

Slaughter: I would not rule out Turkey setting up a buffer zone along its border and possibly Jordan. [doing the same].
…[Internally] if the Sunni support he’s had switches, I think he’s done.

Q: The Egyptian military is playing this cynical game of trying to hang on and retain its power and then, there is the behavior toward the NGOs. How would you handle this if you were still in government? Would you threaten to cut off military aid?

Slaughter: This is not about us. Whatever we can do we can do only at the margins.

What’s at stake is not the aid they [the Egyptian military] get from us but their control of the Egyptian economy and the ability to run it to their private benefit.

At some point, our hands will get forced. Taxpayers are not going to stand for us handing out that kind of aid when they’re actively imprisoning Americans.

Q: U.S. election years are not the best time to make progress on Arab-Israeli peace process and we have the further complication that Netanyahu is running for re-election. Is there anything the U.S. can do?

Slaughter: This is a year where all parties are sorting out domestic issues and there either will be a very different configuration in a year or the same but in a way that forces everybody to recognize this is who you have to deal with.

As long as the Israelis think the Republicans are going to be elected, they have no incentive to give into anything the United States wants. Zbigniew Brzezinski knows something about dealing with Iranians and his advice to President Barack Obama is this: Don’t start a war with Iran.

*Barbara Slavin is Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, specializing on Iran.

Source: Al-Monitor: The Pulse of the Middle East
http://www.al-monitor.com/

Hassan Ahmadian, PhD Candidate
Department of Regional Studies, University of Tehran

Four years after withdrawal of the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) forces from Gaza Strip and separation of Gaza from the West Bank, Palestinians have managed to forge an agreement in the heat of political developments in the Middle East by agreeing to form a national unity government with Mahmoud Abbas as prime minister. Although selecting Mahmoud Abbas for the post has raised many questions, this article discusses the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s position on the Palestinian agreement and its underlying reasons. After the agreement was announced between Hamas’ leader, Khaled Mashal, and Mahmoud Abbas in Doha, Qatar, Netanyahu said Abbas should choose between peace with Hamas or Israel. He also attacked Hamas by saying that Hamas is trying to destroy Israel. After reading his remarks, I wondered what did Netanyahu actually mean by peace? Secondly, what is the relationship between that peace and the Palestinian agreement?

Since Israel’s Likud party, led by Netanyahu, swept to power, on-and-off negotiations between PA and Israelis have come to a halt. However, every time that a new initiative is offered by the Palestinians to promote peace or put more international pressure on Israel, such as Abbas’ initiative to make Palestine a member of the United Nations, Netanyahu and his radical foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, issue warnings about the hypothetical danger to the peace process. A glance at the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in the past decade will prove that nothing has practically remained from the peace process, and what has been done in the same decade is international or regional efforts aimed at reviving the process, not to keep it alive. If by peace, Netanyahu is alluding to Norway Accord, that process has actually died since 1996 after he came to power, and there is no way to restore it. In a meeting with family of an Israeli soldier killed in action in 2000, whose tape record was published last year, Netanyahu clearly said he was proud of his role in undermining the Oslo process.

Even worse, he talked about how he had deceived “American dupes” before explaining about his own motives. He is basically anti-peace and a true graduate of the pristine Israeli school of thought. However, he keeps talking about peace. Interestingly, he only starts thinking about peace when he tries to justify his own irresponsible behavior in continuing to build Jewish settlements and devouring occupied Palestinian lands or when he wants to criticize the Palestinian Authority.

Another point is that since Obama has been putting pressure on Netanyahu to stop building settlements as a precondition for the resumption of peace talks, he has responded by continuously asking with whom Israel is supposed to negotiate. He has frequently asked: “Who is representing Palestinians?” In fact, he uses this pretext in the best way to justify his irresponsible behavior in undermining any effort aimed at reviving the peace process. Obviously, for Netanyahu and his radical friends, peace is just a propaganda tool which is also used from time to time to attract the attention of or deceive the Western audience. From the viewpoint of radical figures of Jewish parties in coalition with Netanyahu, like Shas and Israel Is Our Home, peace means nothing but to reach a compromise with the Arabs to give up the historical land of Israel. Therefore, some of them even avoid of using peace as a propaganda tool, so as to avoid being charged in their constituencies with having forgotten about their pre-election promises.

Allegations about Hamas trying to destroy Israel are merely for propaganda purposes. When Obama was elected US president, Hamas leader, Khaled Mashal, said in an interview that Hamas was ready to announce long-term crease-fire with Israel. His remarks stood in stark contrast with Israel’s propaganda and, therefore, were totally ignored by radical politicians in Netanyahu’s government, though there is no doubt that those remarks had caught their attention. The main point which is slurred over by Netanyahu is how and by means of what weapons, Hamas will be able to destroy Israel? After having laid a siege on Gaza for four years and imposing a destructive war on its people, it is clear that Israel stops at nothing less than total annihilation of Hamas. The evident paradox in Netanyahu’s arguments is that he expects Hamas to recognize Israel while political parties making up his government are by no means ready to recognize Palestinian’s right to independence. The question, therefore, is why agreement between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas is against peace, but Netanyahu’s alliance with Shas or Israel Is Our Home should be considered peaceful? Moreover, establishment of “Jewish government” is now the main goal that Israelis are seeking through negotiations. In other words, the Palestinian Authority, which entered political processes in Madrid and Oslo with official recognition of Israel as precondition, has now to ignore the rights of Palestinians who lost their lands before 1948, as well as the rights of the Palestinian refugees in order to bring that process back to life. Under such circumstances, how Netanyahu expects Hamas to re-experience what Fatah has already gone through? Netanyahu is well aware of the contradiction in his argument and is using Hamas just as an excuse for propaganda purposes.

The agreement between Palestinian groups is beneficial for Palestine and, on the contrary of Netanyahu’s belief, will not be detrimental as forcing Abbas to choose between agreement and peace is to force him to choose between agreement and “nothing.” Netanyahu is the first party to come to loss by that agreement. On the one hand, after the agreement, Palestinians will have more bargaining power to press their own specific preconditions for negotiations with Israel. On the other hand, talking about “agreement or peace” will refute Netanyahu’s claims in the past two years that Israel has no negotiating counterpart to be truly representing Palestinians. This will further unveil the contradiction which is embedded in Netanyahu’s remarks and those of other political figures which make up his coalition government.

In addition, the agreement has taken place under conditions when popular uprisings are sweeping through the Arab countries and is a sign of solidarity with those uprisings, which have already posed serious security threats to Israel. Even participants in the annual Herzliya Conference have admitted to this fact. On the opposite, changes in Israel’s security environment will be totally beneficial to Palestinians and their agreement. Such changes not only make Israel’s security conditions more fragile, but also make continuation of Netanyahu’s policy to buy time and expand Jewish settlements more difficult. Political developments in the past year have shown that time is running against Israel. As a result, the agreement will maximize the possibility of meeting Palestinians’ interests under new conditions of the Middle East while, on the other hand, making the situation more difficult for Israel.

More By Hassan Ahmadian:

*Evolution of Saudi Strategy: Change for Change: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Evolution_of_Saudi_Strategy_Change_for_Change.htm

*Yemen’s Transition from Saleh: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Yemen’s_Transition_from_Saleh.htm

*Iran and Turkey-Egypt Regional Rivalries: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran_and_Turkey_Egypt_Regional_Rivalries.htm

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast says the presence of foreign forces in the Persian Gulf creates insecurity in the region.

“The principle strategy for the elimination of threats and insecurities is that foreign forces return to their region,” said Mehmanparast, adding, “Regional security would be best established by means of collective regional efforts.”

He noted that maintaining security in the vital oil-rich region of Persian Gulf is the main priority for the Islamic Republic, noting that Iran remains fully prepared to counter any threats.

Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman has also warned the West against any anti-Iran measures, saying such hasty moves will inflict heavy losses on the country’s enemies.

“The US and its Western allies are not able to carry out any operations against Iran and any rash, careless measure will undoubtedly impose heavy losses on them,” Mehmanparast said.

He added that the hegemonic powers’ acts of sabotage against the Islamic Republic are due to the country’s great influence on the global political developments.

Referring to the Israeli regime’s allegations that Iran was involved in the recent attacks on its embassy staff in Georgia, India and Thailand, the Iranian official added that Tel Aviv carries out such terrorist acts and puts the blame on Iran to incite the public opinion against Tehran.

Mehmanparast also added that by preparing unprecedentedly biased reports on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and creating a negative atmosphere against the human rights situation in the country, the Israeli regime, which is the main source of terrorist acts in Iran and the whole region, wants to hinder Tehran’s progress.

He also warned against US plans to cripple global economy, stressing Washington is exerting pressure on countries with a high economic growth rate to refrain from buying oil and its products from Tehran.

Iran, with the world's fourth-largest oil reserves and second-largest gas reserves, is regarded as an important planning model for energy-dependent Western countries and it is impossible to remove it from global energy markets, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said.

Countries which have an appropriate economic growth rate are in need of energy resources for the next 30 to 40 years for their development plans, he added.

He emphasized that the US has come to the conclusion that the position of the world’s superior economic powers will undergo a change during the next 10 to 15 years in case of continuation of the ongoing trend.

Mehmanparast noted that China, India, Japan, Korea and Russia will then replace the US as the emerging economic powers.

Mehmanparast further stated that the US is pursuing the current strategy to cause a rift between Iran and regional countries with the purpose of affecting Islamic Awakening in the region.

However, the US can inflict no damage on the Iranian people by the time they maintain their unity and follow up the guidelines of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, he added.

The US and West are currently in a weak position. They are exerting pressure on Iran due to the Islamic Republic’s influence and determining role in regional and international developments, the spokesperson concluded.

The Iranian Official has also rejected as “repeated and baseless” claims by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Tehran is pursuing non-peaceful nuclear activities, insisting that such remarks are politically-motivated.

Such remarks are of a political nature and a bid to eclipse the peaceful and transparent nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic, Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman said.

He added that such efforts aim to overlook the “constant and close” cooperation between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at a time when a team of the agency’s inspectors have recently visited the country.

Mehmanparast rejected as baseless allegations of Sarkozy which were aimed at justifying recent measures against the Iranian nation, including the imposition of “illegal and unfair” sanctions and opposition to Tehran’s scientific and technological progress.

The Iranian spokesperson emphasized that the French president made no remarks about the atomic power plants and nuclear warheads of the Israeli regime which are threatening regional and international peace and security.

Iran rebuffs such “dual and selective” attitude, he pointed out.

Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman also warned against the efforts by certain countries that seek to prepare the ground for a military intervention in Syria.

Those countries that are pursuing such policies pay no heed to general interests in the region, Mehmanparast said, noting that a military intervention in Syria will be “very dangerous” to regional security and stability.

He pointed to the abduction of Iranian nationals in Syria and added that certain countries outside the region and some currents inside the region seek to meet their interests by stoking instability in the Middle Eastern state.

The spokesperson cautioned that they intend to increase insecurity and instability in Syria.

Legitimate demands of the Syrian people should be met and reforms should be made in the country, added Mehmanparast, stressing that the government of President Bashar al-Assad has so far made considerable reforms.

Mehmanparast further denounced as “illegal and inhuman” the abduction of Iranian nationals and expressed hope that following the release of 11 Iranian pilgrims, other kidnapped Iranians would be freed in the near future.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says nuclear weapons do not empower any state and in today’s world A-bombs must be eliminated from political relations.

Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a press conference with his Pakistani and Afghani counterparts in Islamabad, where he is attending a tripartite summit with the country’s eastern neighbors.

Asked if India and Pakistan being nuclear states does not show the double-standard behavior of international bodies with regards to Iran, which is repeatedly harassed by Western states for its nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said, “Atomic bombs do not give anyone superiority and they are not useable.”

“Therefore we base our relations with other governments and nations on criteria that go beyond bombs and temporary policies,” the Iranian president said.

Iran’s President has also reiterated his call on regional countries to stand united in the face of the Western plots aimed at creating rifts in the region.

The hegemonic powers seek to create divisions and tensions among regional countries. They don’t want us to make progress, President Ahmadinejad said.

We should stand by each other and have unity and solidarity in order to advance and realize our goals, Iran’s chief executive added.

Today, we are unfortunately witnessing interference in our regional affairs through military means, said Ahmadinejad, criticizing foreign interference and military presence in the region.

He also underscored the need for regional solutions to the problems of the region.

President Ahmadinejad further said that the third trilateral meeting between Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan has been aimed at discussing ways to deny foreign powers any chance to interfere in regional countries’ internal affairs.

M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, assessed that as of now, Tehran has not decided whether to build a nuclear weapon, although it has been acquiring some skills. He doubted whether Iran would really take the plunge, either:

We [US] believe that the decision would be made by the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] himself and he would base that decision on a cost-benefit analysis. I don't think he'd want a nuclear weapon at any price, so that I think plays to the value of sanctions. They are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision, but there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Ambassador M. K. Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Source: Asia Times Online
http://www.atimes.com/

More By M. K. Bhadrakumar:

*Turkish-Iranian Ties Get Facelift: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Turkish_Iranian_Ties_Get_Facelift.htm

*Russia and Iran Draw Close, Again: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Russia_and_Iran_Draw_Close_Again.htm

*Russia Reaches Out to Iran: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Russia_Reaches_Out_to_Iran.htm

Vali Kouzegar Kaleji

A prominent characteristic of international political players is relativity of relations among them. This essential characteristic forms the basis for the regulation of each country’s goals and interests and determines with what countries, relations should be cordial, hostile, or neutral. Naturally, Iran and Russia, as two major players in international political scene, are no exception to this essential rule. In fact, vacillations in two countries’ relations over the past few centuries should be explained in the light of this rule, which has caused them to get close or distance from each other in various junctures of history. Rapid and complicated developments in the Middle East, especially in Syria, should be considered a turning point in historical relations between Tehran and Moscow, which despite certain differences between the two countries have created many common grounds for the promotion of relations between Tehran and Moscow. This brief article will explore those commonalties in a bid to provide better understanding of recent developments in two countries’ relations.

Political developments in Syria have provided a good ground which has given objective prominence to Iran's commonalties with Russia with regard to developments at international level and in the Middle East region. Both countries, for various historical and geopolitical reasons and because of their interests and national security concerns, are opposed to further expansion of the West’s political, economic, and military domination in their peripheral regions. Therefore, Tehran and Moscow have taken generally similar stances over the past years on such important issues as the eastward expansion of NATO; deployment of the United States’ missile defense shield in the Republic of Czech, Poland, and now Turkey; colored revolutions in peripheral regions of Syria; activities of Western-minded cultural and political institutions; and expansion of the West’s economic activities, especially in the field of energy. Therefore, both countries’ position on the ongoing developments in Syria should be explained in the light of their common concern about unbridled expansion of the West’s influence in the strategic Middle East region.

Russians are well aware that if the current political system in Syria is overthrown, the whole Middle East region will come under the West’s, especially US, domination and this would be a great loss for a reviving Russia. For Iran, Syria is also an important and strategic gravity center of resistance against Israel and the West in the region. Therefore, the fall of the incumbent Syrian government in favor of a Western government will, by no means, be beneficial to strategic interests of Iran and Russia. This issue is important enough to prompt Russia to put up full-force presence in the Syrian developments despite its passive role in developments of other Middle Eastern countries, especially Libya. In the political sphere, Moscow has shown strong resistance to efforts made by the West – Arab – Turkish axis to bring about regime change in Syria. Moscow also categorically vetoed the UN Security Council’s resolution on Syria. On the other hand, at a time that European states, the United States, and Arab countries of the Persian Gulf have recalled their ambassadors from Syria, the Russians have sent their foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Mikhail Fradkov, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Office, to Syria for official meetings with President Bashar Assad.

In the military sphere, Russians have sent their Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier – with advanced Sukhoi 23 and MiG 29 warplanes, K A 27 gunships, as well as missile and submarine systems – to the Syrian territorial waters. In addition, they delivered Yakhont ballistic missiles as part of Bastion coastal defense system to Damascus to prove to the world that, unlike Libya, they are quite serious about developments in Syria. Military relations between Russia and Syria have been vast since the Cold War era. A large part of military technologies in Syria are originally Russian. At that time, relations between Syria and Moscow were at their best and Syria allowed Russia to establish a military base in Tartus port city. The base is still run by Russians and is among few points where the Russian military is directly present in the eastern part of the Mediterranean. Therefore, recent developments in Syria have provided a very good ground for further strengthening of military relations between Moscow and Damascus. On the other hand, a militarily powerful Syria will also be beneficial to Iran's interests as it will be very helpful in countering Israel’s threats. These developments, especially delivery of Yakhont missile defense system for countering Israel’s threats are also important in that delivery of the missile system to Syria has been a matter of controversy and dispute between Russian and Israeli officials since 2007.

Therefore, Russia’s approach to developments in Syria can be compared in terms of sensitivity and the type and intensity of reaction to Moscow’s approach to developments in its peripheral regions. That approach has already led to adoption of strong positions on the expansion of NATO toward Central Asia and Caucasus; establishment of NATO’s missile shield in Eastern Europe; proposed membership of Georgia in NATO; and breakout of colored revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan. In August 2008, the Russians also proved that they will not hesitate to resort to the military in order to protect their strategic interests. Russia’s measures in the case of Syria also prove that it attaches the same degree of importance to Syria that is attached to Moscow’s immediate neighborhood. In fact, if Moscow gave up its role in Syria, it would have to say goodbye to the Middle East, in favor of the West, for good and ever. This will be in stark contrast to large-scale and strategic interests of Moscow. The Russia’s concern is totally in line with Iran's worries about developments in the Middle East, especially expansion of the West’s regional clout and weakening of Syria’s standing in the face of Israel.

Another common ground between Iran and Russia is their support for Assad’s government and the political reforms introduced by the Syrian regime. Unlike the Arab League, Turkey and Western countries which are staunch supporters of regime change in Syria, Iran and Russia are strongly against it and support controlled political reforms. The main concern of both Iran and Russia is internationalization of the situation in Syria, like what happened in the case of Libya. The remarks made by Russia’s permanent representative to the Security Council, Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin, clearly prove this fact. Opposing Morocco’s proposed resolution which called on Assad to step down and transfer power to his vice president, Churkin noted that the Security Council was not a place to appoint or dismiss country leaders. He added that a new framework should be set for the Security Council to prevent its members from trying to oust prime ministers or presidents from power. Iran and Russia have, therefore, made frequent efforts to convince Assad to implement reforms, though they have not been generally successful because Syria’s opposition figures are opposed to Syrian government’s reforms.

The two countries’ vast economic interests in Syria are also a common cause of concern for Moscow and Tehran. As a country which has been under the West’s economic sanctions for long years, economic relations with Iran and Russia are the main source of economic development in Syria. Russia’s exports to Syria stood at over 1.1 billion dollars in 2010. According to Moscow Times, Russians have invested more than 4.19 billion dollars in Syria in 2009. These figures are in addition to four billion dollars of weapons that Russia has sold Syria. Widespread presence of the Russian oil and gas companies in Syria is also remarkable. Iran, on the other hand, has extensive economic relations with Syria as a result of vast political ties between Tehran and Damascus. Total volume of trade exchanges between the two countries hit 5 billion dollars in 2010. Iran and Syria have extensive relations in such areas as tourism, automobile industry, construction of power plants, as well as oil and gas industry. Syria’s unrest has had great negative impacts on economic activities of Iran and Russia in Syria over the last year and has slowed down, or at times stopped, those activities. Both countries are concerned about losing all their economic interests as a result of the overthrow of Assad’s government and its replacement with a Western-minded government which would take anti-Iran and anti-Russia stances. Therefore, economic considerations are of very high importance in determining common positions of Tehran and Moscow on developments in Syria and should be taken into account in any analysis of the ongoing developments.

The last common concern for Iran and Russia is the concern about possible empowerment of radical Islamic figures affiliated with Salafi and Wahhabi currents in Syria. An important part of the opposition to the Syrian government comes from such political currents which enjoy powerful support of regional Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. Russia is already familiar with Salafi and Wahhabi approaches in Northern Caucasus, especially Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Daghistan. Iran is also well aware about anti-Iranian and anti-Shia tendencies of these currents. As a result, in addition to concerns about strengthening of Western tendencies in the country, Iran and Russia also feel greatly threatened by strengthening of Salafi and Wahhabi currents and this issue is another reason why their positions on developments in Syria are so close.

Syria is considered by both Iran and Russia as the most important strategic foothold in the Middle East through which they are able to influence political developments in the whole region, especially in Palestine and Israel. The two countries’ large-scale strategic considerations with regard to the West’s developing influence in the Arab world, military and economic ties, as well as concerns about Western or Salafi currents snatching power in Syria has brought their positions on Syria close. It is very unlikely that the West would go for military intervention in Syria without coordination and consent of Russia. If Moscow succeeds in curbing international pressure against Syria in the Security Council and paves the way for reforms and dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition, one may expect that Iran's and Russia’s interests will be met by preserving Assad’s government to implement reforms without any need to foreign intervention. However, if the West decides with support from Turkey and Arab countries to ignore Russia’s considerations and embark on military intervention in Syria with the final result of regime change in that country, Iran and Russia will be facing dire conditions in the region. In addition to drastic geopolitical changes in the whole region, it would also be very difficult for both countries to try to establish ties with the future Syrian government which will be dominated by a combination of Western-minded and Salafi politicians. In the light of such conditions, Iran and Russia seem to be experiencing one of the most sensitive stages in their bilateral relations which can turn into a tough test for the two countries’ strategic collaboration.

Source: International Peace Studies Centre (IPSC)
http://peace-ipsc.org/fa/
Translated By: Iran Review

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Tehran has added 3,000 new generation centrifuges to its uranium enrichment program.

Describing the installation of new generation centrifuges at Natanz nuclear facility as Tehran’s “third achievement,” Ahmadinejad said that Iran currently has 9,000 active centrifuges.

Ahmadinejad added that Iran is ready to share its nuclear know-how with all member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The Iranian president announced that the country would provide “full protection” for its nuclear scientists.

Iran placed the first indigenous fuel rods into the heart of Tehran Research Reactor.

According to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the fuel rods were produced at Isfahan nuclear facility and transferred to the Tehran Research Reactor under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

By placing nuclear plates into the Tehran reactor, Iran has taken the final step in completing the nuclear fuel cycle.

Arash Zahedi

Israel ratcheting up tension against Iran has found new dimensions as it has recently tried to incriminate Iran in failed bomb attacks against its diplomats in Thailand, India and Georgia.

News of these attacks against Israeli embassies in Tbilisi and New Delhi on Monday February 13 was followed by not necessarily similar news coming from Thailand’s capital of Bangkok a day later where officials say they have arrested men with ‘Iranian passports’ whose rented house, wherein they reportedly kept ‘explosives’, was blown up apparently by accident. And also that one of the men had tried to throw a grenade at the police, according to Thai sources, when it went off and cut his leg.

In appearance, one may consider the different elements forming such events, especially the ones in Georgia and India, as contributing to hostility against Israel. And the question of who can benefit from such acts given the recent political atmosphere, might frame Iran behind these bombings.

But it is only when you put facts into a broader perspective that other factors at play may be revealed. Factors exclusive to groups that have embarked on similar acts in the past. Acts that leave bare the mindset of their perpetrators. And a mindset that wishes to incite hatred against Tehran, picture the Iranian intelligence job as clumsy, legitimize the international sanctions against Tehran and eventually convince the public opinion for a possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Police in Georgia say they had thwarted a bomb attack on an Israeli diplomatic vehicle on Monday and in India the government says it “does not have any evidence pointing to any individual, entity, organization or country being involved in Monday's blast,” unlike Israel that was exotically quick to ‘discover’ that Iran was behind the bombing!

Maybe some would argue that Iran might be conducting an ‘Eye for an Eye’ operation for it has said Israel and the West are behind the serial killings of its nuclear scientists.

First of all, it has been time and again, not only argued but proven by evidence, that Iran has itself been the victim of terrorism. It has lost its citizens to it, from President to ordinary people! But it has continued thriving in many fields despite these hostilities. Tehran has proved and itself knows best that terrorism will not stop anyone from doing what they wish to.

In addition, a country making some of the most sophisticated missiles in the Middle East, with advances in various fields and with a world class intelligence work that has proven beyond capable in the many tests they have had in the past 3 decades, the most notable example of which was during the 8 year imposed Iraqi war, can do immeasurably better in the absolutely unlikely event of a retaliatory operation of this kind! After all, if Iran had intended to take revenge for the killing of its scientists in Tehran, it would undoubtedly target somebody as important in Tel-Aviv, not an Israeli ambassador’s wife in New Delhi!

But what about the Thai incident? Who are these suspects obviously not involved in a sophisticated terrorist attack? Individuals with bombs so poorly made, constructed and kept who depart from the scene chaotically with a clear lack of operational security in entering and moving about since they entered Thailand. People who carry their Iranian passports, weather fake or real, to a terrorist operation! It all indicates a purely amateurish operation with little advance planning for contingencies.

It is not hard to find politically unhappy groups in any given country and make them do things in exchange of some cash or other incentives. What Israel is doing in the west bank of blackmailing desperate people to change them into Palestine ‘traitors’ makes it all the more likely that Tel-Aviv could be the number one funder of such operations. And who else better than elements affiliated with the outlawed MKO (Mojahedin Khalq Organization) to conduct these acts, a group that has fought against Iran alongside Iraq’s ex-dictator Saddam Hussein? They have proven they will do whatever it takes to tarnish Iran’s international image time and again besides being involved in a number of bombings against the Iranian nation that have killed many.

The recent events are only the continuation of the Western/Israeli game whose previous stage was played in October 2011 when Iran was alleged to have been involved in an assassination attempt on Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington and likewise with false flag written all over them!

And let’s be reminded that it is Israel’s staunch ally, the US, not Iran, that has military bases all around Iran, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Bahrain. It is the US aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf waters not an Iranian Navy ship near New York in the Atlantic Ocean! It is a mystery how would a country (Iran) be thought of as an international threat under such circumstances.

Having said that, the fact of the matter is that despite Israel’s unsubstantiated allegations against Iran, it is the Tel-Aviv regime that has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and has tried to sell some to other countries. It is them who benefit from murdering Iran’s scientist and can forge passports for its Iranian IDF members. It was Israel who assassinated 9 free Gaza activists on the high seas. It was them who dropped white Phosphorous on civilians in Gaza. Israel was the one that dropped thousands of cluster bombs in the last hours of war on Lebanon. One better remember its past and even present before throwing around accusations.

Such acts will only create hatred not sympathy for Israel and Tel-Aviv had better do something about it. People who raided the Israeli embassy in Cairo in September last year were freedom seeking revolutionary Egyptians who saw Israel behind a lot of their miseries during the Mubrak era. It is likely other Israeli embassies be targeted in the world thanks to the Tel-Aviv policies in different countries.

Public opinion would simply consider it as unwise to frame only Iranians for such attacks when Israel has amply chosen not to be favored.

*Arash Zahedi is a Tehran-based political analyst and broadcaster. He is a frequent contributor to Press TV.

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/

Secretary of Iran Supreme National Security Council says Iran is ready to restart negotiations over its peaceful nuclear program with the P5+1 -- the US, UK, France, Russia, and China plus Germany.

Sending a letter to the European Union foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, Saeed Jalili welcomed the group’s recent announcement that it is ready to return to the negotiating table.

The Iranian official said the success of negotiations is tied to the P5+1’s constructive approach to Iran’s initiatives.

Jalili also praised Ashton’s recent remarks about the group respecting Iran’s right to use peaceful nuclear energy.

Iran has cautioned against the dire consequences of a foreign military intervention in Bahrain as well as the intensifying use of violence against the people of the oil-rich Persian Gulf state.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi expressed Tehran’s deep concerns over the ongoing brutal crackdown on the peaceful anti-government protests in Bahrain, where demonstrators have demanded the restoration of their legitimate civil rights and decried the Al Khalifa regime's discriminatory policies and the widespread human rights abuses.

The Iranian foreign minister made his statements in separate messages addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Togolese President of the UN Security Council Kodjo Menan, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, Secretary General of the Arab League Nabil al-Arabi, the Beninese Chairman of the African Union Yayi Boni as well as the Egyptian Secretary-General of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Mohamed Hussein Tantawi.

Dozens of people have either lost their lives or sustained injuries in Bahrain as a result of the continuing systematic clampdown on anti-regime rallies and the persistent deployment of foreign forces to stifle public demands, Salehi pointed out.

The Iranian foreign minister noted that the continuation of such events infringes on the basic rights of the Bahraini people in the first place and will additionally pose serious risks to regional peace and stability.

He stated that the deceptive and dubious approaches of major international decision-making bodies, coupled with their media blackout over the developments in Bahrain, have emboldened the US-backed Manama regime and foreign forces to continue the massacre and torture of the Bahraini protesters.

Given the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights, the Islamic Republic of Iran strives to prepare the ground for constructive negations between the protesters and the Bahraini government in efforts to assist in resolving the ongoing crisis in the Arab state, Salehi underlined.

The senior Iranian official also called for the exploitation of all available means and legal channels to alert the world public opinion to the humanitarian catastrophes in Bahrain, urging the international community to adopt appropriate measures to halt human rights violations and foreign military intervention there.

Iran's Foreign Minister also said that a key policy of the Islamic Republic is providing full support for resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine.

Referring to the trend of the recent regional and international developments and the intensifying pressures against the resistance movement, Salehi underlined Iran’s principal policy of comprehensively backing the resistance front in Lebanon and Palestine.

Support for the Syrian government and people and their legitimate demands is also among the priorities of the Islamic Republic, the top Iranian diplomat added.

He emphasized that Iran opposes any foreign interference in the internal affairs of Syria.

Salehi said that developments in the region which are the outcomes of the implementation of genuine demands by regional nations would further promote the role and influence of the resistance front as well as the Islamic Republic in the area.

This is why, he added, that at this point in time enemies have resorted to mounting extensive pressures on the Islamic Republic.

Salehi also pointed to the growing relations between Iran and Lebanon and called for the further expansion of comprehensive ties.

Edited By: Miriam Pemberton & William D. Hartung

Paperback: 160 pages
Publisher: Paradigm Publishers (May 30, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1594514992
ISBN-13: 978-1594514999

Contributors

Fred Barbash, Phyllis Bennis, Linda Bilmes, Hans Blix, Neta C. Crawford, Ivan Eland, Frances FitzGerald, Aziz Huq, Chalmers Johnson, Michael Klare, Jeffrey Laurenti, Jules Lobel, John Prados, Anas Shallal, Normal Solomon, Joseph Stiglitz, Janine Wedel, C.K. Williams.

Description

If what is shaping up to be the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history has an upside, it is that the current war in Iraq should definitively, permanently settle a handful of critical questions about American conduct in the world. This book provides a list of those questions and even ventures some answers in the form of key lessons from Iraq.

The idea of assembling lessons as tools for avoiding the next war is less of a stretch than it seems, given the group of writers represented here. They include a Nobel Prize–winning economist; the former chief UN weapons inspector; and an Iraqi American whose weekly conversations with his relatives have given him a grim education on what living through a war to spread democracy is like on the ground. Also here is a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award winner who traces the recurring American bad habit of starting wars as tryouts for big ideas.

All societies need a ready reference handbook that draws some lines around its conduct of war. The Bush administration has produced a radical overhaul of the U.S. manual. Given the Iraq experience, it is urgent that we reject this version and think again. This book is a manageably sized, accessibly written, affordable compilation of key points that most urgently need to be rethought.

Including contributions by Hans Blix, Frances Fitzgerald, Chalmers Johnson, Michael Klare, Anas Shallal, Joseph Stiglitz, C.K. Williams, and others!

•Hard-hitting lessons from the Iraq War

•Offered by a star quality author list

•Reflecting expertise ranging from the UN arms inspection commission (Hans Blix) to the insights of a Nobel Prize–winning economist (Joseph Stiglitz)

•Including unusual pieces like a firsthand account of an earlier Iraq war (Anas Shallal) and a prose poem by a Pulitzer Prize–winning poet (C.K. Williams)

Reviews

“America’s future will be one of endless war unless we can come to grips with the deceptions, the lies, the reckless doctrines, the politicized intelligence, and the dishonest accounting that brought us the Iraq war. Read this compelling set of essays and join the movement to prevent the next war.”
—Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Blood Rites, This Land is Their Land, and Nickel and Dimed

“Assessing the wreckage caused by the Iraq War is an urgent national priority. This timely, immensely thoughtful, and justifiably angry collection gets that process off to an excellent start.”
—Andrew J. Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War

“If a main reason our government went to war in Iraq was to reassert American authority after 9/11 exposed our vulnerability, the actual consequence—as these incisive and important essays make clear—has been just the opposite. Not only have we paid dearly in blood, in treasure, and in damage to American liberties, the decline of our credibility and prestige has led to a sharp reduction in American power. We tried to show that we are strong and made ourselves seem weak.”
—Aryeh Neier, President, Open Society Institute

Contents

Chapter 1: The Dangerous Leap: Preventive War Neta Crawford

Chapter 2: American Imperialism: Enabler of War Chalmers Johnson

Chapter 3: “An Untidy Cost of Freedom”? Spreading Democracy by Military Force Anas Shallal

Chapter 4: Ideas Floating Free: War as Demonstration Model Frances Fitzgerald

Chapter 5: A Motive Hiding in Plain Sight: War for Oil Michael T. Klare

Chapter 6: To Avoid Future Iraq-Style Quagmires, Reduce U.S. Global Military Presence Ivan Eland

Chapter 7: Hidden Wounds and Accounting Tricks: Disguising the True Costs Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes

Chapter 8: Lies, Spies, and Legends: The Politicizing of Intelligence John Prados

Chapter 9: New Frontiers of Media Manipulation Norman Solomon

Chapter 10: America’s Slide: From Leadership to Isolation Jeffrey Laurenti

Chapter 11: Inspections or Invasion: Lessons From Iraq Hans Blix

Chapter 12: Coalition of the Coerced Phyllis Bennis

Chapter 13: Monarchic Pretensions: The War Power Grab Fred Barbash

Chapter 14: Torture No More Aziz Huq

Chapter 15: The Shadow Army: Privatization Janine Wedel

Chapter 16: Invitation to Steal: War Profiteering in Iraq William D. Hartung

Chapter 17: The (Iraq) War on Civil Liberties Jules Lobel

Chapter 18: War for Peace C.K. Williams

About the Author

Miriam Pemberton, Ph.D., is Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and Peace and Security Editor of its Foreign Policy in Focus project. She leads the team that produces the annual “Unified Security Budget for the United States.”

William D. Hartung is Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation. He is the author of And Weapons for All (HarperCollins 1994) and How Much Did You Make on the War, Daddy? A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration (Nation Books 2005).

Iran has rejected the Israeli allegations that it was involved in Monday’s attacks on Israeli embassy staff in Georgia and India.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said that the accusations are baseless and noted that they are a part of Tel Aviv’s psychological warfare campaign against Iran.

"We categorically reject the accusations made by the Zionist regime. They are part of a propaganda war," Mehmanparast said.

He stated that the Islamic Republic condemns every terrorist act because Iran is the biggest victim of terrorism, adding that Israel and its allies are the main source of terrorism in the world.

“The Zionist regime has a serious record of criminal actions against humanity, and it is the first suspect of any terrorist operation in the world,” he said.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has also dismissed Israel's allegations that Tehran was behind Tuesday's explosions in the Thai capital Bangkok.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman condemned the blasts and said that Israeli agents are often the perpetrators of such terrorist acts.

Ramin Mehmanparast also said that Canadian foreign affairs minister’s recent anti-Iran claims are “not worth responding to.”

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird recently said that Iran was pursuing military purposes in its nuclear program and also suggested that a scenario similar to the one, which happened in Libya would happen in Iran.

“Our evaluation so far is that these remarks do not meet the least diplomatic standards and are thus not worth a response,” Mehmanparast stated.

“The Canadian government actually sees itself as the guardian of the failed legacy of the US neocons. Therefore, adoption of such stances by Canadian officials is no wonder to us,” he added.

He noted that many Canadian intellectuals and politicians had rejected Baird’s allegations and questioned the credibility of the ‘hilarious’ remarks regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

“Mr. Baird must directly clarify that…based on what reasons he, with such certainty, made the hilarious claim of production of nuclear weapons by Iran,” Mehmanparast said, reminding constant monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the agency’s reports of no deviation in the Iranian nuclear program.

Regarding the Iran-Libya analogy, Mehmanparast said that Baird’s remarks proved that the Canadian minister was lacking in information on the recent developments in the region.

“We advise that Mr. Baird read more about the issues in the region and avoid repeating remarks, which bring disgrace for the Canadian government in the world’s public opinion and among Canadian intellectuals,” he said.

The Iranian official also dismissed the minister's allegation against Tehran of human rights violations and blamed Ottawa for committing ‘systematic’ human rights violation against Canada’s indigenous citizens as well as for the crimes committed by Canadian troopers against the people of Afghanistan.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman also said that the country is set to use the West’s political and economic pressure as an opportunity to gain more progress and independence.

Ramin Mehmanparast detailed the US hostilities against Iran in the past three decades after the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

He said Washington has made strenuous efforts to stonewall Iran’s progress in various areas including nuclear energy.

Mehmanparast condemned the US-engineered sanctions against the Iranian nation as “illogical and antagonistic.”

A nation, which has paid a heavy price so far for its independence, will use these political and economic pressures as opportunities for progress and self-reliance, he said.

The Iranian official reinstated Tehran’s determination to pursue its peaceful nuclear program and rejected allegations leveled by the United States, Israel and their European allies accusing Iran of seeking nuclear weapons.

Mehmanparast also addressed the recent popular revolutions in the Middle East and highlighted Beijing’s role in maintaining security and stability in the region.

He also said as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China could prevent the military adventurism of some Western countries in the region.

Referring to the importance of nuclear energy in the future, Mehmanparast said the reason for the opposition of the US and the West against Iran’s program is to retain monopoly of nuclear technology for only a few countries in the world.

Vijay Prashad

An explosion on Aurangzeb Road in New Delhi damaged an Israeli embassy car, and injured its occupants.Tal Yehoshua Koren, the wife of the defense attache at the Israeli embassy was seriously wounded. She is in critical care. She was on her way to pick up her children from their school. It is unusual for a diplomatic vehicle to be attacked on the streets of New Delhi. The Delhi police went into action. The international media wanted to know who had done the attack minutes after it was reported.

The police was wary. Let us conduct our investigation, they said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went before his parliament and accused Iran of a terrorist act. "The elements behind these attacks were Iran and its protege, Hezbollah." Iran, he said, is "the largest terror exporter in the world" and Israel "would act with a strong hand." This was all the confirmation that BBC needed. It began to report the attack as an Iranian act against an Israeli diplomat on Indian soil.

Why would Iran conduct an attack on an Israeli diplomat in India, particularly as India is in the midst of trying to negotiate a delicate arrangement with Tehran to pay for Iranian oil? The question mystifies.

Iran is responsible for 12% of India's imported oil (see my India pivots, and pivots again, Asia Times, February 9, 2012). Over the past two years India has struggled to find a mechanism to pay Iran for this oil. Sanctions by the United States and the European Union as well as by the United Nations Security Council against Iran have complicated the market for Iranian oil. Until 2010, India used the facilities offered by the Asian Clearing Union (ACU), founded in 1974 as an outgrowth of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

To help countries economize on their foreign exchange reserves, the ACU allowed them to conduct bilateral barter and make payments using the Asian Monetary Units (currency units indexed to the US dollar and the euro that allowed countries to hold surpluses and deficits outside their formal foreign exchange reserves). In December 2010, under pressure from the US Treasury, the Indian government withdrew from the ACU facility (a Reserve Bank of India circular from December 27 noted that "all eligible current account transactions including trade transactions with Iran should be settled in any permitted currency outside the ACU mechanism").

The Indian government then turned between February to April 2011 to a complex mechanism using the Hamburg-based Europaisch-Iranische Handels Bank (EIH) via the German Central Bank and the State Bank of India. The procedure did not violate UN security council or European Union sanctions. With the end use for payments certificate provided by the State Bank of India, the US Treasury should have ben satisfied - the money was going toward payments for crude and not to facilitate Iran's nuclear program.

Nonetheless, pressure on German Chancellor Angela Merkel from the US mounted. "Treasury is concerned about recent reports that the German government authorized the use of EIH as a conduit for India's oil payments to Iran," the US government noted. "Treasury will continue to engage with both German and Indian authorities about this situation and will continue to work with all the allies to isolate EIH." On April 4, 2011, the US Treasury got its way. Germany broke the India-Iran link.

India then conjured up an arrangement with Turkey's Halkbank. Turkey, with deep economic ties with Iran, has abided by the 2010 security council restrictions but has refused the deeper US and European Union sanctions regime. The Turkish government owns a 75% stake in Halkbank, and has allowed it to be the conduit for countries like India to pay for Iranian oil. Mehmet Ozkan, who teaches international relations at the International University of Sarajevo, told me that Turkey is trying to develop an "independent line," following the UN sanctions but keeping itself apart from the harsher US and European Union sanctions.

Over the past year, US Treasury officials have visited Turkey to try and cut Turkey's links to Iran. Obama's December 31 tighter sanctions made it illegal for American firms to do business with those firms that dealt with Iran's Central Bank. Halkbank is relatively immune from the US financial system, and it is the main financial intermediary for the Turkish refiner Tupras. Nonetheless, as E Ahmet Tonak who teaches political economy at Istanbul Bilgi University told me, Halkbank had to accede to the strong US pressure, particularly after a US Treasury team visited Turkey in the past few weeks.

Indian and Iranian officials have been in dialogue over the past two weeks to circumvent the embargo of Iran's financial system. India does not have the flexibility of China, whose economic power gives it genuine independence. China pays for Iranian oil with the yuan, which it is trying to put forward as an international trading currency. India does not have that freedom.

In early February, the Indians and Iranians created a payments mechanism: India would pay 45% of its oil bill with rupees which would be held in the Kolkata-based UCO bank and paid out to two Iranian private banks, Bank Parsian and Karafarin Bank. The rest of the oil bill will be sorted out in time.

India hopes to use these rupees to boost exports from India to Iran. Currently trade between India and Iran is uneven, with only US$ 2.74 billion as Indian exports in a total trade bill of $13.6 billion. To boost the Indian exports, the government plans to send a delegation to Iran in the next few months. "A huge delegation will be going," said Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar. Anup Pujari, Director-General Foreign Trade (DGFT), Union Ministry of Commerce, pledged to a gathering in Mangalore that this delegation was going to strike a deal.

The exporters should continue booking business with their Iranian counterparts. India wishes to export wheat and rice, tea, pharmaceuticals, iron and steel. The US has said that it would not sanction "food, medicine, medical devices. So from our perspective," US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said, "this kind of trade would not be sanctioned." Or at least one should say, it will not be sanctioned for now. There was also talk that India could barter wheat for oil, but the country's Food Minister K V Thomas has not yet seen a formal proposal.

The stumbling block this week was over the payment mechanism. By Indian law, if Iran receives payment in rupees inside India it will have to pay a 40% withholding tax. The Indian government is under pressure from the refiners in India to forgive this tax. "Most likely the National Iranian Oil Company would not want to pay this high tax," said B Mukherjee, a director of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. "We clearly do not want to pay the tax as it will make our imports costlier. I might as well buy oil from somewhere else if this 40% stake is saddled on me."

In a major speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on February 6,India's Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai noted, "Iran is our near neighbor, our only surface access to Central Asia and Afghanistan, and constitutes a declining but still a significant share of our oil imports. For us, there are also broader and long-term geostrategic concerns that are no different from what we face elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region. Our relationship with Iran is neither inconsistent with our non-proliferation objectives, nor is it in contradiction with the relationships that we have with our friends in West Asia or with the United States and Europe."

The US sees these trade relations as deeply troubling. The US is eager to make the Iranian sanctions a test of friendship with its allies. US State Department spokesperson Nuland said last week, "We are working with countries around the world, including India, that maintain strong oil relationships with Iran, encouraging all of them to reduce their dependence on Iranian crude."

The India-Iran deal is near completion. How the attack on the Israeli embassy car in New Delhi will impact on this is anyone's guess. Parochial political agendas once more threaten to interrupt a very important quest, which is to create trust and interdependence across the Asian continent and defuse any tensions that might lead to war. The sanctions regime is a fool's paradise, undermining the fuel paradise that Iran and India have sought to construct.

*Vijay Prashad is Professor and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, United States. This spring he will publish two books: Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press) and Uncle Swami: South Asians in America Today (New Press). He is the author of Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World (New Press), which won the 2009 Muzaffar Ahmed Book Prize.

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Source: Asia Times Online
http://www.atimes.com/

Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh
Executive Editor of Iran Review

The massive turnout of the Iranian people to mark the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which was more populous than previous years as captured in photos and films, can convey different messages from the standpoint of an Iranian political observer.

Firstly, although US and European Union’s so-called “smart” sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran mostly affect the ordinary people, the Iranian nation has shown – to the amazement of the Western and non-Western observes – that they are still loyal to pronounced goals of the revolution, which is establishment of an Islamic system and compliance with viewpoints of their Supreme Leader. Their presence in street demonstrations marking the Islamic Revolution’s anniversary was in answer to a dominant theory which has been promoted by the American and European statesmen in past months that increased pressures, sanctions and repeated claims about a possible military strike against Iran in addition to sanctions against the country’s oil and financial sectors will finally bring people to their knee and make them take action against the Islamic system.

Secondly, the fact that most slogans shouted in the demonstrations throughout the country targeted Israel proves that Iranian people’s disregard for Israel’s military threats,and allegations about role of Israeli leaders in putting pressure on legislative bodies of other countries, including the United States, are not simple slogans or mere positions taken by the country’s political leaders.Since the outset of their revolution, Iranians have given priority in their struggles to supporting the cause of Palestine. Likewise, by mentioning the name of Palestine in their Constitution, they have put emphasis on the strategic importance of finding a fair solution to the issue of Palestine.

The Iranian nation has frequently reaffirmed through the past three decades that all Muslim nations aim to support the rights of the Palestinian nation and urge the world to grant their demands after 60years of struggles. The West should have found out about correctness of this approach during recent developments in the Arab world. In fact, good relations between Arab states and Israel were simply the wish of their non-elected rulers. Therefore, as soon as dictators like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak or Tunisia’s Zine al-Abedin bin Ali were overthrown, their people chose to defend the rights of the Palestinian nation and oppose Israel.

In the meantime, recent announcement of Israel’s friendship with the Iranian people by the Israeli regime’s president has been only construed by Iranians as a new trick. It would be better for the American politicians – as many American analysts have already advised them – to untie their countries’ interests from those of Israel and pay more attention to true costs of this policy in terms of declining prestige of the United States in the American public opinion as well as in the eyes of 1.5 billion Muslims of the world.

Thirdly, it is a major characteristic of Shia way of life to avoid of accepting oppression and force. If Western politicians and experts working with Western research institutes had tried to take a realistic approach away from media influence to international issues as seen and understood by the Iranian nation, they would have found out that insistence on Iran’s nuclear rights is part of the identity of Iranians. Regardless of political and factional approaches in the country, it arises from historical identity and approach of Iranians to what has happened in the course of the past few centuries. From the viewpoint of Iranians, the all-out support of the United States and EU for the former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, during his eight-year war with Iran which cost the lives of thousands of Iranian youths and demolished a big part of the country’s infrastructure; US’ strange support for Israel and Washington’s frequent efforts to prevent discussion of global problems resulting from Israel’s policies by vetoing many anti-Israeli resolutions in the UN Security Council; efforts to obstruct Iran's progress, especially in the area of nuclear technology through hard and soft ploys, including the Stuxnet virus; assassination of young Iranian scientists, imposing all-out sanctions and forcing almost all countries to follow suit with the United States’ unilateral sanctions, do not leave any room for the Iranian elites and ordinary people to trust the United States’ policies. This is not an issue to have been underlined simply by the Iranian politicians and officials.

Finally, let’s not forget that US presidential elections are forthcoming this year and past experience has taught Iranians the ironical fact that as presidential elections draw close, war drums are beaten more powerfully and waves of Iranophobia engulf American and other Western media. It is not clear what happens in the near future, but the point is that to know the realities of Iran, one should distance from ordinary analyses of Iran's dissidents who live outside the country, and try to understand what Iranians say away from any prejudgment. This fact has been repeatedly singled out by such famous American analysts as Stephen Walt (1) , Thomas Pickering, and William Luers (2) . Let’s hope that their voice is heard above the false propaganda hype that has already engulfed the United States.

Notes:

(1) Stephen M. Walt, “Why aren’t we negotiating with Tehran?” cited in http://walt.foreignpolicy.com, February 3, 2012

(2) William H. Luers & Thomas R. Pickering: “Envisioning a deal with Iran”, The New York Times, February 2, 2012

More By Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh:

*Iran and Management of New US Scenario: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran_and_Management_of_New_US_Scenario.htm

*Iran, West and Human Rights: Is Compromise Impossible?: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran_West_and_Human_Rights_Is_Compromise_Impossible_.htm

*Iran and Special Human Rights Rapporteur: http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran_and_Special_Human_Rights_Rapporteur.htm