Can We Have An Adult Conversation About Iran?

(Because the American president with a funny name met with the Isaerli prime minister with a funny name to discuss the Iranian president with a funny name)

One current political issue that keeps driving me into episodes of screaming crazies is the whole topic of Iran and nukes. It's like the media and the politicians are going through a bitter divorce with reality, so they deny even the most basic facts about the situation. Both AIPAC and the republican presidential candidates would have you believe that Iran is just about to start WWW3, nuking Tel Aviv sometime next week, regardless of the real facts.

Let's start with a simple reality, as shown in the chart above: The US and Russia have the vast majority of the nuclear weapons on this planet, by such a magnitude that if Israel and France piled all there nukes together it would still be only a tiny fractional threat. Fact number two: Iran is only approaching the capability of low enriched uranium, which is a long way short of weapons grade (damn, I need Sweaterman to give me numbers on this) uranium. And, as North Korea has proven, having weapons grade uranium doesn't mean you have a working nuclear weapon. But the third, greatest, fact to me is: why would Iran want to commit suicide by using a nuke against Israel? Yes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used some very provocative rhetoric, but he's not in charge of Iran. Clerical Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is, and a week and a half ago, Khamenei gave a major foreign policy speech in which he said:

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. 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.”

Now, you don't have to believe him. But let's use some basic logic: what would Iran actually gain by attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon? There is, simply, no profit for Iran in such an attack. Far more likely is that Iran would like to develop the capacity to build a weapon, which would then be a far more valuable bargaining chip toward ending sanctions.

Don't get me wrong; Iran is not our friend. They're hostile (with some justification) to America's and Israel's interests throughout the region. Sanctions have made our relationship even more adversarial, but we're still a long way from any legitimate grounds for war.

So let's consider what would actually happen if, worst case scenario, Iran actually did develop a nuclear weapon: regional escalation. Saudi Arabia (Sunni) would most certainly want a nuclear deterrent to (Shia) Iran, as would most likely Turkey. The risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists or extremists would increase (although the greatest risk would still be from Pakistan and the unsecured remnants from the former Soviet Union) slightly.

Then, let's compare the risks of military action against Iran by either Israel or the US...(think about it for a while. I'll save that for another post.)

(BTW: Thanks to those who've hit the Paypal button. Any additional help is greatly appreciated)

A Sane Idea (in an insane world)

One topic in the current political sphere that can get me into a screaming fit rather quickly is the subject of Iran. Especially with the current crop of republican candidates sounding ready to rush (with the exception of Ron Paul) into a military attack. The 'justification' for bombing Iran is that they have a (small, minimal) nuclear program, which could someday lead to a nuclear weapon. Which, of course, would be a threat to Israel (who has plenty of nukes) and the region (which has oil), and therefore to America.
Iran has repeatedly said that they want nuclear energy to produce electricity. Which actually makes a lot of sense. Iran has a lot of oil, but oil is a lousy source for electricity, for both efficiency and the environment. As a modernizing country, Iran is facing ever increasing demand for more electricity.
Then I read a piece by Thomas Buonomo at Informed Comment that I thought was truly brilliant:

An Alternative Course of Action

Considering the doubtful prospect of an effective sanctions regime and the unpredictable consequences of a military strike or covert action, the Obama administration should consider offering the Iranian government an opportunity for rapprochement in the form of renewable energy technology and financial incentives to help it achieve its ostensible goals.

Iran has abundant geothermal, solar, hydroelectric and wind energy resources that could help it meet its domestic electricity demand without presenting an inherent threat to the international community. This would require substantial investment but Iranian leaders might be prepared to consider such an alternative if the U.S. and other UN Security Council states were prepared to offer it attractive financing options.

Such an initiative would demonstrate to Iran that the United States acknowledges its legitimate energy and national security interests and is willing to take meaningful steps to support its peaceful aspirations and integration into the international community in return for its abandonment of its nuclear program.

http://www.blogger.com/www.juancole.com/2012/01/to-avoid-war-obama-should-offer-iran-renewable-energy-aid-buonomo.html

Now, I realize that Iran is not exactly our friend. In fact, the history of US-Iran relations is one of constant conflict, and we haven't had diplomatic relations since 1979. But imagine how relations (and the propaganda) could be reversed if America offered Iran alternative energy aid, and we began relating to each other as respectful adults. If Obama were to actually do this, he'd deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, and it would drive the neocon warmongers crazy. Plus, it might actually work.

And So It Ends

The war in Iraq has officially come to a close, as the last convoy of American troops crosses the border into Kuwait.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The last convoy of U.S. soldiers pulled out of Iraq on Sunday, ending nearly nine years of war that cost almost 4,500 American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and left a country grappling with political uncertainty.

The war launched in March 2003 with missiles striking Baghdad to oust President Saddam Hussein closes with a fragile democracy still facing insurgents, sectarian tensions and the challenge of defining its place in an Arab region in turmoil.

The final column of around 100 mostly U.S. military MRAP armored vehicles carrying 500 U.S. troops trundled across the southern Iraq desert from their last base through the night and daybreak along an empty highway to the Kuwaiti border.

After Obama announced in October that troops would come home by the end of the year as scheduled, the number of U.S. military bases was whittled down quickly as hundreds of troops and trucks carrying equipment headed south to Kuwait.

Only around 150 U.S. troops will remain in the country attached to a training and cooperation mission at the huge U.S. embassy on the banks of the Tigris river.

At the height of the war, more than 170,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq at more than 500 bases. By Saturday, there were fewer than 3,000 troops, and one base - Contingency Operating Base Adder, 300 km (185 miles) south of Baghdad.

news.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/last-us-troops-leave-iraq-ending-war.php?ref=fpa

Well, I guess we should all be glad that it's over, and that Obama kept his promise on Iraq.

Such a stupid and tragic waste. A war begun on lies, whose toll in blood and treasure has yet to be fully paid. The carnage inflicted upon the Iraqi people will linger for decades. And for what? To remove one brutal but impotent dictator from a world with dozens of other brutal dictators, and inflict chaos as a result.

There were never any 'weapons of mass destruction', despite all the right wing media hype. Saddam was never a 'threat' to the United States; only a minor inconvenience with a lot of oil.

We spent (at least) 4,474 American soldiers lives, and well over a trillion dollars destroying Iraq. When it comes to 'weapons of mass destruction', we're by far the world leaders. Meanwhile, we're letting our own country fall into disrepair and decay, citing austerity and budget deficits. Demolishing Iraq's infrastructure took priority over repairing our own. As someone who has worked jobs in both demolition and construction, I know that demolishing things is more fun than building them. But the results are no where near as satisfying.

Have we learned a lesson from our arrogance and hubris? Sadly, I think not. All the republican presidential candidates except Ron Paul are advocating for military action against Iran. The neocons and the military industrial complex continue, their bloodlust unsated. And Dick "the dick" Cheney is still alive, so the world still isn't safe from madmen bent on destruction.

Thoughts on Iran

First, if you want real insight into the events in Iran, I recommend (as with all things Middle East) that you read Juan Cole. Also, Andrew Sullivan (who I usually disagree with) has been doing a great job covering the Iran protests. And finally, this piece by Robert Fisk. (Added: see also Watergate Summer, where Enigma4ever has a great roundup). They, and many other real experts, will give you more serious insight than I am capable of. That said, here's some of my view:
First, it's important to remember that the Iranian election isn't about us. The vast majority of Iranian voters were angry about Iran's domestic economy. Opposition to Amahdinejad came primarily from the ongoing poverty in Iran in the face of vast oil wealth, not an opposition to the Islamic theocracy. One reason that the blatant election fraud seems so strange is that Moussavi is also supported by, and a strong supporter of, the Islamic council that is the true power in Iran. It's really unclear to me why the Ayatollah (and the supreme council) chose to rig the election, since the real power (and control of the Republican Guard) would remain unchanged, regardless of who won a legitimate election. By engaging in such blatant disregard of the voters will, they've actually weakened their own position. The Islamic Republic was under no threat from Moussavi. Now they are under threat from the massive public outcry.
Second, there is the history of mass protest in Iran from 1979. Each death leads to an additional demonstration of mourning. The 1979 revolution only came about after almost a year of daily demonstrations. So crackdowns will continue to bring more people out into the streets, and further weaken the government control as family loyalties (the strongest bond in Iranian society) tax the guards loyalty to the government. The Shah lost when his guards defected to join their brothers and sisters in the Green Bands (side note to media pundits: the Green Bands were the Islamic militia in 1979; wearing green bands still symbolize support for Islamic law, not some sort of western ideal of "freedom fighters"). This may take a while to play out.
Thirdly, Obama seems to be doing the right thing, by trying to remain uninvolved. He's walking a tightrope, but faced with the history of American meddling in Iran, support for the protesters is bound to backfire. The Iranian government is already portraying the demonstrations as the result of foreign provocation. Regardless of America's preference, Obama will need to deal with the eventual victor, and any American endorsement will only poison future relations.
While I said earlier that this isn't "about us", it's certainly clear that America would prefer to see Amahdinejad out of power. Amahdinejad's bombastic anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric has made it almost impossible to conduct any realistic dialog with him. He's created an adversarial relationship, and shrub and the neocons were perfectly willing to engage as adversaries. It's almost impossible to negotiate when both parties start by calling the other "evil". Moussavi is anti-American and anti-Israeli, but he's much calmer in his rhetoric than Amahdinejad, so there's a chance to open talks with a 'clean slate' (in reality, a less tainted slate), or at least without the baggage of recent years. I doubt that it will be a 'warm friendly' relationship, but it would allow us to pull back from the brink of war.
Added:

Those Mousavi supporters are using the slogans of the Islamic Revolution and it's my understanding that they are mostly simply seeking a return to the status quo ante, when their votes meant something in the half-rigged Islamic Republic's system. They're not looking to depose the mullahs and they're not looking to break the system that's persisted since 1979 - they just want it to work as advertised. Nowhere is this clearer than in their choice of leaders: Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Montazeri. All members in good standing of the Iranian politico-clerical elite and all standing to gain nothing from a break-up of the existing system. As Trita Parsi writes:

What's often forgotten amid the genuinely awe-inspiring spectacle of hundreds of thousands of long-suppressed people risking their lives on the streets to demand change is the fact that the political contest playing out in the election is, in fact, among rival factions of the same regime. Ahmadinejad represents a conservative element, backed by the Supreme Leader, that believes the established political class has hijacked the revolution and enriched themselves and is fearful that the faction's more pragmatic inclination toward engagement with the West could lead to a normalization of relations that will "pollute" Iran's culture and weaken the regime. Mousavi is not really a reformer so much as a pragmatic, moderate conservative who has campaigned with the backing of the reform movement because it recognizes that he has a better chance of unseating Ahmadinejad than one of their own would have.

(from http://www.newshoggers.com/)

Not Quite the Strangest Proposal I've Read

This is certainly among the stranger proposals ever made to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (it's never going to happen, but it is an amusing idea):

A 12-year-old Iranian schoolboy who hopes to unseat hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed that, if elected, he will resettle Israelis in Hawaii, The Scotsman reported on Friday.

"I will buy Hawaii, Obama's birthplace, from the United States and lease it to the Israelis who will go to live there - so that they don't kill children in Gaza," the Scottish daily quoted presidential candidate Kourosh Mozouni as saying.

The paper said Mozouni made the comments to reporters after he turned up to register holding his father's hand and waving a written campaign manifesto.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086106.html

I didn't know that twelve-year-olds were even allowed to run for President in Iran, but lets face it: he's probably more mature than Ahmadinejad.

Rejecting Reality

Our shrub has decided that mere facts shouldn't be enough to prevent a war with Iran. As he travels the middle east trying to push an Israeli-Palestinian "peace plan" by demonizing Iran (yeah, I have no idea how that works), he's now rejecting the NIE:

In public, President Bush has been careful to reassure Israel and other allies that he still sees Iran as a threat, while not disavowing his administration's recent National Intelligence Estimate. That NIE, made public Dec. 3, embarrassed the administration by concluding that Tehran had halted its weapons program in 2003, which seemed to undermine years of bellicose rhetoric from Bush and other senior officials about Iran's nuclear ambitions. But in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. "He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views" about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity.

Bush's behind-the-scenes assurances may help to quiet a rising chorus of voices inside Israel's defense community that are calling for unilateral military action against Iran. Olmert, asked by NEWSWEEK after Bush's departure on Friday whether he felt reassured, replied: "I am very happy." A source close to the Israeli leader said Bush first briefed Olmert about the intelligence estimate a week before it was published, during talks in Washington that preceded the Annapolis peace conference in November. According to the source, who also refused to be named discussing the issue, Bush told Olmert he was uncomfortable with the findings and seemed almost apologetic. (bolds mine)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673

The whole confrontation with Iran is the worst possible idea that has come out of shrub's little mind. Given that both Russia and China have strong ties with Iran, and that the current American economy can't support another war, how the hell can shrub get away with this kind of bullshit?

I wish we could just lock him in a rubber room with a bunch of toy soldiers for the next year, and that we'll elect a sane president who will actually engage in diplomacy with Iran.

Shrub and Iran

Our shrub is in the middle east, trying to tell everybody how evil Iran is, and spreading his version of democracy.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Jan 13 -- President Bush accused Iran Sunday of undermining peace in Lebanon, funding terrorist groups, trying to intimidate its neighbors and refusing to be open about its nuclear program and ambitions.

In a speech described by the White House as the centerpiece of his eight-day trip to the Middle East, Bush tried to speak directly to the people of Iran as he urged nations to help the United States "confront this danger before it is too late."

"You have a right to live under a government that listens to your wishes, respects your talents and allows you to build better lives for your families," Bush said to Iranians. "Unfortunately, your government denies you these opportunities, and threatens the peace and stability of your neighbors. So we call on the regime in Tehran to heed your will, and to make itself accountable to you."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011300342.html?hpid=topnews

Lovely piece of rhetoric, telling the Iranians what sort of government they should have. We could use a government that listens to our wishes, too.
Meanwhile, shrub shows the world how we get our allies to help in the "peace" process:

Bush is trying to persuade Arab countries to join U.S. efforts to pressure Iran, though many have displayed ambivalence about the administration's campaign amid a new U.S. intelligence report that concluded Iran stopped a nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The president will travel Monday to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, viewed by many inside and out of the administration as the lynchpin of its efforts to develop an anti-Iran coalition. As part of an effort to show its commitment to Saudi Arabia, a senior administration official said the White House plans to notify Congress about a substantial package of arms sales for Saudi Arabia; it seemed likely to be on the order of $20 billion.

A $20 billion arms package is just the thing to help pacify the middle east, isn't it?

Preventing War With Iran

The latest move by Russia may be a major step in preventing an American attack on Iran:

Russia is to supply Iran with a new and lethal anti-aircraft system capable of shooting down American or Israeli fighter jets in the event of any strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran yesterday confirmed that Russia had agreed to deliver the S-300 air defence system, a move that is likely to irk the Bush administration and gives further proof of Russia and Iran's deepening strategic partnership.

The S-300 had a range far superior to that of the US Patriot system, experts said. It could also shoot down cruise and ballistic missiles, they added.

"It's a formidable system. It really gives a new dimension to Iran's anti-aircraft defences," said one Russian defence expert, who declined to be named.

"It's purely a defensive system. But it's very effective. It's much better than the US system. It has good radar. It can shoot down low-flying cruise missiles, though with some difficulty."

The sale follows Russian president Vladimir Putin's visit to Iran in October to attend a meeting of Caspian Sea nations, the first trip by a Russian head of state to Tehran since Stalin attended a 1943 summit with Churchill and Roosevelt.

Putin has made clear his opposition to the US hardline stance on Iran, and has defended Iran's right to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2232345,00.html

This will make the Cheney's plan for precision air strikes a lot more difficult. Every time I've posted about a possible attack on Iran, I've expressed my hope that the wiser heads would be able to prevent it. Now the Russians have put up a very large roadblock. The top military brass has been opposed to attacking Iran, and will be much more reluctant to attack in the face of upgraded air defense. Maybe, just maybe, the Cheney can be stopped.

Christmas in Tehran

A beautiful gallery of photos of Christmas in Iran is here:

http://www.photoactivistsforpeace.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=136

We can also deduce from such things as Christmas trees being sold on Tehran sidewalks and big Merry Christmas signs hanging in Tehran stores that while American aggression in Iraq may have had the tragic "blowback" effect of driving out 90% of all Christians who once lived there, Muslim tolerance towards Christians is still alive and well in Iran.

Yes, there are christians celebrating Christmas in Iran. If you are spending the holidays with any "bomb Iran" wingnut relatives, you may want to show them this.

Added: found via Libby at http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/

Shrub Rejects Intelligence

I had hoped to post yesterday on shrub's press conference, but didn't get to it. Shrub seems to be rather confused by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
For example, Iran halting their nuclear weapons program in 2003 means:

Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. The NIE says that Iran had a hidden -- a covert nuclear weapons program. That's what it said. What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program? And the best way to ensure that the world is peaceful in the future is for the international community to continue to work together to say to the Iranians, we're going to isolate you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071204-4.html

Notice that shrub believes that "knowledge" is "dangerous" (which explains a lot of his behavior). He made the point more than once:

I think it is very important for the international community to recognize the fact that if Iran were to develop the knowledge that they could transfer to a clandestine program it would create a danger for the world. And so I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it. And the thing that would make a restarted program effective and dangerous is the ability to enrich uranium, the knowledge of which could be passed on to a hidden program.

Of course, the "knowledge" to make a nuclear weapon is readily available to just about anyone who has studied physics. Given that Iran has a fairly highly educated population (many Americans may be surprised by that) and that the "knowledge" is readily available in the world, we would have to eliminate a lot of people to keep Iran from having the "knowledge". And he's not backing down:

THE PRESIDENT: No, nobody ever told me that. Having said -- having laid that out, I still feel strongly that Iran is a danger. Nothing has changed in this NIE that says, okay, why don't we just stop worrying about it. Quite the contrary. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn't changed.

And I just explained, Jim, that if you want to avoid a really problematic situation in the Middle East, now is the time to continue to work together. That's our message to our allies, and it's an important message for them to hear. And here's the reason why: In order for a nation to develop a nuclear weapons program they must have the materials from which to make a bomb, the know-how on how to take that material and make it explode, and a delivery system.

Now, the Iranians -- the most difficult aspect of developing a weapons program, or as some would say, the long pole in the tent, is enriching uranium. This is a nation -- Iran is a nation that is testing ballistic missiles. And it is a nation that is trying to enrich uranium. The NIE says this is a country that had a covert nuclear weapons program, which, by the way, they have failed to disclose, even today. They have never admitted the program existed in the first place.

The danger is, is that they can enrich, play like they got a civilian program -- or have a civilian program, or claim it's a civilian program -- and pass the knowledge to a covert military program. And then the danger is, is at some point in the future, they show up with a weapon. And my comments are, now is the time to work together to prevent that scenario from taking place. It's in our interests.

So Iran is a "threat to peace"? I know it's not a revelation that our shrub is a moron, but how the hell did this idiot get to be in charge of a country that has actual functioning nuclear weapons? Shrub has proven himself to be the greatest threat to peace on the planet. It wont be Iran that starts WWIII. Let us hope that shrub will be prevented from starting it.

Odd Allies

There are times when I get confused by international relations. Our shrub has a unique talent for uniting diverse groups, albeit that he unites them against him:

The diplomatic chess game around Iran's nuclear program includes an unlikely bishop. According to several well-placed Rome sources, Iranian officials are quietly laying the groundwork necessary to turn to Pope Benedict XVI and top Vatican diplomats for mediation if the showdown with the United States should escalate toward a military intervention. The 80-year-old Pope has thus far steered clear of any strong public comments about either Iran's failure to fully comply with U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors or the drumbeat of war coming from some corners in Washington. But Iran, which has had diplomatic relations with the Holy See for 53 years, may be trying to line up Benedict as an ace in the hole for staving off a potential attack in the coming months. "The Vatican seems to be part of their strategy," a senior Western diplomat in Rome said of the Iranian leadership. "They'll have an idea of when the 11th hour is coming. And they know an intervention of the Vatican is the most open and amenable route to Western public opinion. It could buy them time."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687445,00.html

With the timing of the Annapolis conference on low expectations (hey, we'll talk about peace and then do absolutely nothing to promote peace), and the ongoing rhetoric blaming Iran for our disaster in Iraq, strange bedfellows are increasing. Most of the world is trying to prevent the Cheney from attacking Iran, and they just might prevail.

On Diplomacy with Iran

In an interview done by Maziar Bahari of Newsweek with Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's former ambassador to France and the person reported to have penned the famous 2003 Iran offer to resolve outstanding issues with the United States, Kharazi makes a powerful argument for a positive diplomatic exchange.

Sadegh Kharazi: Because of the disastrous results of American unilateralism in Iraq, they are looking for an international support of their initiatives vis-à-vis Iran. Everyone knows that an American military attack will not only damage Iran but also other countries in the region as well as American interests in the Middle East.

...

We may have the same illusion. In either case it's wrong. Both sides should put aside the smear campaign against each other and populist slogans and adopt more pragmatic policies.

...

In diplomacy everything's possible and nothing is impossible. I think both countries should lay all the issues on the table and discuss their problems. There is no problem that cannot be solved. If both countries recognize each other's rights, then they can collaborate on many issues, including Iraq, Afghanistan and smuggling of narcotics. They can have differences of opinion, but there is no reason for the current hostility. America has its own differences with China, Russia and even Europe, but that doesn't mean that they cannot talk.

...

Even though Iran is ready to defend its interests by any means necessary, the first priority of Iran's supreme leader and the government of Iran is stability of the region. They don't want war and tension. That is why Iran cooperated with the United States to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. Under the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei Iran has normalized its relations with many countries who were our enemies in the past.

...

What our current government is doing is a reaction to years of Americans ignoring Iran's positive gestures. During the presidency of Mr. [Mohammad] Khatami, whenever we wanted to have a rapprochement with the United States they demanded more. We cooperated with them in Afghanistan and we were called a member of the Axis of Evil. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq we sent them a letter with a package of proposals, but they chose to ignore it. Extremism breeds extremism.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/69268

The sad fact that our administration will never engage in such a discussion leaves us so much weaker.

A Photo

Guess where this is. Here's a truly beautiful photo album . Take a look at some places the Cheney would like to bomb.

An Interesting Plan

Well, this doesn't fit with shrub's anti-Iranian rhetoric. Our friend Saudi Arabia is offering nuclear cooperation with Iran:

U.S.-allied Gulf states are willing to set up a body to provide enriched uranium to Iran to defuse Tehran's stand-off with the West over its nuclear plan, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister told a newspaper on Thursday.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries -- Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates -- share Western concerns that Iran's nuclear energy program will lead to it acquiring atomic bombs, a claim Tehran denies.

"We have proposed a solution, which is to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium in the Middle East," foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED).

"(We will) do it in a collective manner through a consortium that will distribute according to needs, give each plant its own necessary amount, and ensure no use of this enriched uranium for atomic weapons," he said, according to MEED's Web site.

Prince Saud said Iran was considering the offer, which envisages building a plant in a neutral country.

"We believe it should be in a neutral country -- Switzerland, for instance," said Prince Saud. "Any plant in the Middle East that needs enriched uranium would get its quota. I don't think other Arab states would refuse. In fact ... other Arab countries have expressed a desire to be part of the proposal."

"They (Iran) have responded that it is an interesting idea and they will come back to us. We hope the Iranians will accept this proposal. We continue to talk to them and urge them not only to look at the issue from the perspective of the needs of Iran for energy, but also in the interests of the security of the region."

The six Gulf Arab states have announced plans to start their own nuclear energy program, raising concern over an arms race in the world's top oil exporting region.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071101/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_saudi_dc_2&printer=1;_ylt=AkZyB4yZ9zLZiBEdZZVPpxtg.3QA

It's actually a very rational idea, and coupled with Russia's nuclear offer to Iran, could allow Iran to have nuclear energy with a much lower risk of nuclear weapons.

Of course, this would remove one of shrub's justifications for a war with Iran. By offering to work with Iran, Prince Saud has changed the whole Middle East dynamic.

Cheney is probably drop kicking kittens as he reads this.

Stupid Sanctions

Shrub had Condi announce a new round of sanctions against Iran. I'll let Prof. Cole explain why it's a bad idea:

The Bush administration announced wideranging new sanctions on Iran on Thursday, which target three Iranian banks, nine companies associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and several individuals, as well as the IRGC (roughly analogous to the National Guard in the US, i.e. a populist adjunct to the formal Iranian army).

These unilateral sanctions clearly reflect frustration on the part of Bush/Cheney that they have not been able to convince the UN Security Council to apply international sanctions. (Iran has not been demonstrated to be doing anything that is illegal in international law.)

The sanctions may work but may not. The Dutch Shell corporation is thinking seriously of bucking the US and helping develop Iranian oil and gas production. China is negotiating a big deal with Iran. The world is energy hungry. Iran has energy. The US is a debtor nation, and has gone even more deeply into debt under Bush. It may just not be able to stand in the way of the development of Iranians energy.

The hypocrisy of the Bush case is obvious when it complains about Iran supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. The Kurds based in American Iraq have done much worse things to Turkey in the past month than Hizbullah did to Israel in June of 2006. Yet when Israel launched a brutal and wideranging war on all of Lebanon, destroying precious infrastructure and dumping enormous amounts of oil into the Mediterranean, damaging Beirut airport, destroying essential bridges in Christian areas, and then releasing a million cluster bomblets on civilian areas in the last 3 days of the war-- when Israel did all that, Bush and Cheney applauded and argued against a 'premature' cease-fire! Yet they are trying to convince Turkey just to put up stoically with the PKK terrorists who have killed dozens of Turkish troops recently and kidnapped 8 (again, more than the number of Iraeli troops that were kidnapped). Bush's coddling of the PKK in Iraq is not different from Iran's support for Hizbullah, except that the PKK is a more dangerous and brutal organization than Hizbullah.

Not to mention the US-backed Kurdish front against Iran itself, as Farideh Farhi
explains.

Among the more fantastic charges that Bush made against Iran was that its government was actively arming and helping the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban are extremist Sunnis who hate, and have killed large numbers of Shiites. Shiite Iran is unlikely to support them. The neo-Taliban are a threat to the Karzai government, which represents the Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks) along with non-Taliban Pushtuns. The Hazara are Shiite clients of Iran, and both the Tajiks and the Uzbeks are close to Tehran. The neo-Taliban are being supported by Pakistan, which resents the Northern Alliance, not by Iran, which favors it.

That Iran is trying to destabilize the Shiite government in Baghdad is absurd. The Bush administration charge that Iran is the source of explosively formed projectiles is based on very little evidence and flies in the face of common sense; in fact these bombs are probably made in Iraq itself or perhaps come from Hizbullah in
Lebanon.

The charges are frankly ridiculous, and certainly are so if proportionality is taken into account. That is, if one bomb was sold by an Iranian arms dealer to the Taliban for profit, a hundred bombs were given to the Taliban by Pakistan for tactical reasons. Likewise, the Shiite militias in Iraq have killed very few American troops when the US troops have left the Shiites alone; most attacks on the US come from Sunni Arabs.

The Senate Kyl-Lieberman resolution helped legitimize this new Bush policy, which is why the senators should not have voted for it. It took us one more step down the
road to war with Iran.

http://www.juancole.com/

Why, oh why, are they so committed to an adversarial relationship with Iran? We need more allies, not more wars.

Shrub is Getting More Delusional

Our shrub is using Iran as a justification for the missle defense shield, but to me it sounds like the delusional ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic:

Our intelligence community assesses that, with continued foreign assistance, Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States and all of Europe before 2015. If it chooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps to prevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability. And we need to take it seriously -- now.

Today, we have no way to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat, so we must deploy a missile defense system there that can.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071023-3.html

The various nutcase ravings about the "need to attack Iran" are getting crazier with each passing week, but this one is just plain insane. The missle defense shield doesn't work, so we must use it to defend ourselves from weapons that don't exist, because Iran might someday attack us? What's next? Iran might develop flying zombie vampire pigs someday, so we must attack them now?

Getting Iran Wrong

The picture above is important when considering our shrub's rhetoric on Iran. For all the rants about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there is Vladimer Putin talking with the true power in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei.

After meeting with President Ahmadinejad in Iran earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed his support for Iran's nuclear energy program. He has also said he sees no evidence Iran is looking to build a nuclear bomb.

Mr. Bush said Wednesday he looks forward to having Mr. Putin clarify his remarks. He said Mr. Putin told him last month at the APEC summit in Australia that the world must ensure that Iran does not have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

Iran's chef nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Wednesday Mr. Putin has put forward a proposal regarding Iran's nuclear program during talks with Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Larajani did not elaborate.

http://voanews.com/english/2007-10-18-voa2.cfm

Our shrub said this earlier this week (a truly scary statement, given the past rhetoric):

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html

There is a simple way to resolve this: Work with Russia and the IAEA to insure that Iran's nuclear program is for energy and not for weapons. If we had a mature administration, we would be engaging in dialogue with Iran. After all, we really could use their help next door:

BAGHDAD, Oct. 17 — Iraq has agreed to award $1.1 billion in contracts to Iranian and Chinese companies to build a pair of enormous power plants, the Iraqi electricity minister said Tuesday. Word of the project prompted serious concerns among American military officials, who fear that Iranian commercial investments can mask military activities at a time of heightened tension with Iran.

The Iraqi electricity minister, Karim Wahid, said that the Iranian project would be built in Sadr City, a Shiite enclave in Baghdad that is controlled by followers of the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr. He added that Iran had also agreed to provide cheap electricity from its own grid to southern Iraq, and to build a large power plant essentially free of charge in an area between the two southern Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf.

The expansion of ties between Iraq and Iran comes as the United States and Iran clash on nuclear issues and about what American officials have repeatedly said is Iranian support for armed groups in Iraq. American officials have charged that Iranians, through the international military wing known as the Quds Force, are particularly active in support of elite elements of the Mahdi Army, a militia largely controlled by Mr. Sadr.

An American military official in Baghdad said that while he had no specific knowledge of the power plant contracts, any expansion of Iranian interests was a concern for the military here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/world/middleeast/18grid.html?ei=5087&em=&en=01be634a5830f23b&ex=1192852800&pagewanted=print

We've heared a lot about Iran "meddling" in Iraq, which is almost absurd in light of the reality of our occupation of Iraq. While we may not like it, Iran has a vested interest in the stability of the country next door, and many reasons to oppose a foreign power occupying it. And, given that after four and a half years and $5 billion dollars, Iraqi's still have less electricity now than they did prior to our invasion, maybe we could use their help.

Don't get me wrong. I'm well aware that the Iranian regime is hostile toward America (not surprising, given the history). But previous administrations found ways to negotiate and work with hostile regimes to achieve common goals. It's a lot more beneficial than going to war with them.

Scott Ritter on Iran

I've been trying to write a post on Iran that would compare the rhetoric with the reality, but I haven't been having much success in making it coherent. Now I see that Scott Ritter has written what I meant to say:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran’s support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments
presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the early 1980’s when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.

The US claims concerning Iranian interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality that both nations border Iran, both nations were invaded and occupied by the United States, not Iran, and that Iran has a history of conflict with both nations that dictates a keen interest concerning the internal domestic affairs of both nations. The United States continues to exaggerate the nature of Iranian involvement in Iraq, arresting “intelligence operatives” who later turned out to be economic and diplomatic officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi government itself. Most if not all the claims made by the United States concerning Iranian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been backed up with anything stronger than rhetoric, and more often than not are subsequently contradicted by other military and governmental officials, citing a lack of specific evidence.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18521.htm

Ritter is one of the people who said that the Iraqi WMD claims were lies, based on his time as a U.N. weapons inspector, and he was right. He was attacked by the right-wing, but some of us knew he was telling the truth. Now, as the drums are beating for war with Iran, we need to listen to him. Please read the whole thing.

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).

Fairly Ironic

Cernig at The NewsHoggers caught this:

Doubtless egged on by their own equally-crazed versions of Kyl and Lieberman, Iran's parliament has passed a non-binding resolution of its own:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army ``terrorist organizations,'' in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The hard-line dominated parliament cited U.S. involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.

``The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror,'' said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

The resolution, which is seen as a diplomatic offensive against the U.S., urges Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations. It also paves the way for the resolution to become legislation that - if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog - would become law. The government is expected to wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision.

In reality, there's a strong case to be made. The CIA does have a worse international record than Iran's revolutionary guard.

Added: Ahmadinejad also invited shrub to come and speak at any Iranian university shrub chose.

Somewhat Good News

I'm glad to see the U.N. putting further sanctions against Iran on hold for now, insisting that the IAEA report in November be heard first.

Six key nations and the European Union agreed Friday to delay until November a new U.N. resolution that would toughen sanctions against Iran, waiting to see if Tehran answers questions about its disputed nuclear program.

A joint statement from the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany with E.U. support said they would finalize the new resolution and bring it to a vote unless reports in November from the chief U.N. nuclear official and the European Union's foreign policy chief "show a positive outcome of their efforts."

The United States, Britain and France had been pushing for new sanctions now to pressure Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, but Russia and China wanted to give Tehran more time to comply with U.N. inspectors.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied, however, that the agreement was tantamount to a cave-in by the United States, which has been pushing for new sanctions for months.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/un_iran_nuclear&printer=1;_ylt=ArqVVX5p0dp54ct4uEkRXt2WwvIE

I continue to hope that we can tone down the rhetoric on Iran, and actually engage in dialogue, as we really don't need any more enemies in the area.

Of course, there are questions about Iran's nuclear program as to whether they are seeking weapons or energy. The right-wing seem certain that it is a weapons program, but I have yet to see any actual evidence (Sweaterman, please feel free to post the technical info if you get a chance; I bow to your expertise). Nuclear power for electricity makes sense for Iran, as they are growing more modern and generating electricity by burning oil is very inefficient and pollution intense (note the poster: we were happy to give the Shah nuclear power).

In the end, I trust El-Baradei and the IAEA a hell of a lot more than the neo-con war-whores.

Oh, and I liked this: