Wikileaks as self-fulfilling prophesy

Much has already been said and written about Wikileaks, not just about the diplomatic cables themselves but indeed about the very notion of divulging such large amounts of sensitive information to the public.

The cable containing a list of vital US facilities has been described as the most controversial of all the leaked documents. Frankly, it's hard to disagree with Malcolm Rifkind, the former British Foreign Minister, that this degree of irresponsiblity borders on criminal.

However, it could be argued that there is another - perhaps greater - danger in releasing this kind of information into the public domain in that it will change peoples attitudes and probably not for the better.

Using the highly publicised example of Arab states urging the US to attack Iran, anyone with a basic knowledge of Middle Eastern politics will probably not be surprised. It is hardly a secret that Saudi Arabia sees Iran as its main rival in the region and vice-versa.

However, when these positions are laid out so starkly in the public domain, is there not a real risk that positions will harden on all sides? Will Iranian hardliners - and perhaps even the Iranian people - see enemies all around them and react like a cornered animal? Will Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab states involved, redouble their efforts to cut off the head of the snake in the fear that the snake will strike first? Will warmongers in the US and/or Israel attempt to use these Arab states to apply even more pressure on their governments and militaries and force them to strike Iran?

In short, by releasing these documents have Wikileaks made a military strike on Iran more likely? Have they created a self-fulfilling prophesy?

Did the people at Wikileaks ask themselves any of these questions before divulging all that information? If not, why not? If yes, then how do they justify their actions which can only cause heightened tensions and reduce the chances of a diplomatic solution?

The truth is that with information comes responsibility. Wikileaks obtain and release masses of information, apparently without thought to the consequences and certainly with no responsibility or accountability. Unlike investigative journalism for example, there are no corroborating facts, no second opinions, no explanations of context. They simply dump huge amounts of information for people to digest, usually through headlines and at-a-glance summaries.

This is not freedom of information or freedom of speech in any real sense and the consequences of such recklessness are not likely to be good.

<div align="justify">Much has already been said and written about Wikileaks, not just about the diplomatic cables themselves but indeed about the very notion of divulging such large amounts of sensitive information to the public.<br /><br />The cable containing a list of vital US facilities has been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766">described</a> as the most controversial of all the leaked documents. Frankly, it's hard to disagree with Malcolm Rifkind, the former British Foreign Minister, that this degree of irresponsiblity borders on criminal.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />However, it could be argued that there is another - perhaps greater - danger in releasing this kind of information into the public domain in that it will change peoples attitudes and probably not for the better.<br /><br />Using the highly publicised <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran">example</a> of Arab states urging the US to attack Iran, anyone with a basic knowledge of Middle Eastern politics will probably not be surprised. It is hardly a secret that Saudi Arabia sees Iran as its main rival in the region and vice-versa.<br /><br />However, when these positions are laid out so starkly in the public domain, is there not a real risk that positions will harden on all sides? Will Iranian hardliners - and perhaps even the Iranian people - see enemies all around them and react like a cornered animal? Will Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab states involved, redouble their efforts to cut off the head of the snake in the fear that the snake will strike first? Will warmongers in the US and/or Israel attempt to use these Arab states to apply even more pressure on their governments and militaries and force them to strike Iran?<br /><br />In short, by releasing these documents have Wikileaks made a military strike on Iran more likely? Have they created a self-fulfilling prophesy?<br /><br />Did the people at Wikileaks ask themselves any of these questions before divulging all that information? If not, why not? If yes, then how do they justify their actions which can only cause heightened tensions and reduce the chances of a diplomatic solution?<br /><br />The truth is that with information comes responsibility. Wikileaks obtain and release masses of information, apparently without thought to the consequences and certainly with no responsibility <em>or accountability</em>. Unlike investigative journalism for example, there are no corroborating facts, no second opinions, no explanations of context. They simply dump huge amounts of information for people to digest, usually through headlines and at-a-glance <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points">summaries</a>.<br /><br />This is not freedom of information or freedom of speech in any real sense and the consequences of such recklessness are not likely to be good.<br /></div></span>

Iran and the IAEA

An IAEA Board of Governors Report, made public this week by the Institute for Science and International Security, claims that Iran is interfering with the IAEA's mission in the country by blocking the appointment of particular inspectors -- those that possess knowledge and experience of its nuclear fuel cycle. More specifically, they prevented the return of inspectors who highlighted what they believed was unreported nuclear activity.

This report is significant as it's yet another example of the IAEA drawing attention to its own institutional weakness; on this occasion the inability to select its own inspectors. Instead, the agency presents a list of individuals to the country it's inspecting, which can then object to any names it's unhappy with. And in the end it's the state (not the IAEA) that has the final say.

As a result, the IAEA's work is made difficult by Iran throwing obstacles in the way of individuals who are attempting to build expertise. This is particularly true at the facility level, where experience gained from previous visits to Natanz enables a level of knowledge that can not be gained from reading briefing books. But Iran certainly isn't breaking any rules by these actions, it's just not acting in good faith. So what can be done? Answer: nothing. And if the international community did try to reform the selection process then it will be rightly accused of double standards.

So does this report highlight anything new with regards to Iranian compliance?

Well, not really. Once again it shows Tehran isn't willing to go out of its way to prove its compliance, but under the current rules it doesn't need to. So it's just another example of it dragging its feet, even though there is no real evidence it's diverted nuclear material to a weapons programme. So unless a) there is evidence in the future that a significant quantity of material has been diverted; b) all IAEA inspectors are thrown out; or c) additional uranium enrichment facilities are discovered, then the West and Israel are going to find it difficult to prove what Iran's intentions really are.

An IAEA Board of Governors <a href="http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Iran_report.pdf">Report</a>, made public this week by the Institute for Science and International Security, claims that Iran is interfering with the IAEA's mission in the country by blocking the appointment of particular inspectors -- those that possess knowledge and experience of its nuclear fuel cycle. More specifically, they prevented the return of inspectors who highlighted what they believed was unreported nuclear activity.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />This report is significant as it's yet another example of the IAEA drawing attention to its own institutional weakness; on this occasion the inability to select its own inspectors. Instead, the agency presents a list of individuals to the country it's inspecting, which can then object to any names it's unhappy with. And in the end it's the state (not the IAEA) that has the final say.<br /><br />As a result, the IAEA's work is made difficult by Iran throwing obstacles in the way of individuals who are attempting to build expertise. This is particularly true at the facility level, where experience gained from previous visits to Natanz enables a level of knowledge that can not be gained from reading briefing books. But Iran certainly isn't breaking any rules by these actions, it's just not acting in good faith. So what can be done? Answer: nothing. And if the international community did try to reform the selection process then it will be rightly accused of double standards.<br /><br />So does this report highlight anything new with regards to Iranian compliance?<br /><br />Well, not really. Once again it shows Tehran isn't willing to go out of its way to prove its compliance, but under the current rules it doesn't need to. So it's just another example of it dragging its feet, even though there is no real evidence it's diverted nuclear material to a weapons programme. So unless a) there is evidence in the future that a significant quantity of material has been diverted; b) all IAEA inspectors are thrown out; or c) additional uranium enrichment facilities are discovered, then the West and Israel are going to find it difficult to prove what Iran's intentions really are.<br /></span>

Iran & the West III

In the last part of the BBC documentary, following details are worth noting:

• After 9/11, Iran offered to cooperate unconditionally with the US in its 'War on Terror'. This was because Al Qaeda as well as the Taliban were enemies of both the US and Iran.

• In the 6+1 talks at the UN, Iran provided the US with crucial intelligence about the situation in Afghanistan, such as targets for the bombing campaign. Furthermore, Iran helped the US create a new Afghan government.

• In light of those events, the US state department advocated a policy of rapprochement. But George W. Bush opted for the goal of regime change in Iran.

• Nine months later, British foreign minister Jack Straw went to Teheran to gather support for the invasion of Iraq. Chatami promised help and advice. He suggested to repeat the successful cooperation of the times of the Afghanistan operation. But Bush torpedoed the deal, again against the advice of the state department.

• The famous letter that addressed all of the mutual grievances between Iran and the US and that was conveyed by the Swiss ambassador, was rejected by the top of the US state department, not the US president.
  

• When the foreign ministers of the UK, France and Germany (E3) went to negotiate with Iran the halt of their enrichment programme, they agreed to apply the definition of "suspension of the enrichment programme" of the IAEA. The question was whether that would mean a total stop, the Western demand, or no infusion of Uran into the centrifuges, the Iranian interpretation. Iran had met El Baradei the day before the E3 meeting. In this meeting, El Baradei supported the Iranian interpretation. He later changed his mind and adopted the Western interpretation.

• The Iranians offered a deal in which they would stop killing Western troops in Iraq if in return they could pursue their nuclear programme. That was the first time that Iran admitted responsibility for coalition deaths in Iraq.

• In June 2006, Javier Solana offered the Iranians to keep centrifuges for research purposes. Something that Jack Straw had rejected two years earlier. This time, Ahmadinejad turned the offer down. In return, the West imposed more sanctions.

In the last part of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL1d7777SAU&feature=related">the BBC documentary</a>, following details are worth noting:<br /><br /><ul><li>After 9/11, Iran offered to cooperate unconditionally with the US in its 'War on Terror'. This was because Al Qaeda as well as the Taliban were enemies of both the US and Iran.</li></ul><ul><li>In the 6+1 talks at the UN, Iran provided the US with crucial intelligence about the situation in Afghanistan, such as targets for the bombing campaign. Furthermore, Iran helped the US create a new Afghan government.</li></ul><ul><li>In light of those events, the US state department advocated a policy of rapprochement. But George W. Bush opted for the goal of regime change in Iran.</li></ul><ul><li>Nine months later, British foreign minister Jack Straw went to Teheran to gather support for the invasion of Iraq. Chatami promised help and advice. He suggested to repeat the successful cooperation of the times of the Afghanistan operation. But Bush torpedoed the deal, again against the advice of the state department.</li></ul><ul><li>The famous letter that addressed all of the mutual grievances between Iran and the US and that was conveyed by the Swiss ambassador, was rejected by the top of the US state department, not the US president.<br /></li></ul><ul><li>When the foreign ministers of the UK, France and Germany (E3) went to negotiate with Iran the halt of their enrichment programme, they agreed to apply the definition of "suspension of the enrichment programme" of the IAEA. The question was whether that would mean a total stop, the Western demand, or no infusion of Uran into the centrifuges, the Iranian interpretation. Iran had met El Baradei the day before the E3 meeting. In this meeting, El Baradei supported the Iranian interpretation. He later changed his mind and adopted the Western interpretation.</li></ul><ul><li>The Iranians offered a deal in which they would stop killing Western troops in Iraq if in return they could pursue their nuclear programme. That was the first time that Iran admitted responsibility for coalition deaths in Iraq.</li></ul><ul><li>In June 2006, Javier Solana offered the Iranians to keep centrifuges for research purposes. Something that Jack Straw had rejected two years earlier. This time, Ahmadinejad turned the offer down. In return, the West imposed more sanctions.</li></ul>

Iran & The West II

In the second part of the BBC documentary on Iran and the West, I noted following things:

• The UN did not condemn Iraq for attacking Iran, nor did it demand an Iraqi withdrawal from Iranian territory

• The UN did not condemn the use of chemical weapons against Iran, despite the fact that it was a violation of the Geneva convention

• When the Israel-Lebanon war started in 1982, Iran send 1000 soldiers to Lebanon, in order to gather support for Iran and the revolution in the Muslim world. The Lebanese who received training by those Iranians became known as Hezbollah

• Iran intervened to liberate the French hostages (in return the French agreed to stop selling arms to Saddam Hussein and payed a considerable amount of money). This deal was called off, because the French opposition (led by Jaques Chirac) offered the hostage takers of Hezbollah more favorable conditions under the precondition that the release of the hostages was delayed until after the French election

• Rafsandjani forced Khomenei to accept the ceasefire offered by Iraq
  

• After the death of Khomenei, Rafsandjani guided the assembly of religious scholars to elect Khamenei as new supreme leader

• In August 1998, the Taliban killed nine Iranian diplomats in Masar-i-Sharif. In response, Iran prepared to go to war with the Taliban. In order to really international support, they addressed the Afghanistan committee at the UN, the only forum where Iran and the US both sat together. For the first time, a US foreign minister met with a foreign minister of the Islamic Republic. At least that's what the US believed. Actually, nobody of the US delegation knew the Iranian foreign minister. Finally, Kofi Annan revealed the Americans that it was not the foreign minister but his deputy. Khatami, the Iranian president, had downgraded the level, to appease his domestic rivals.

In the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOKRbYjqgg0&feature=related">second part of the BBC documentary on Iran and the West</a>, I noted following things:<br /><br /><ul><li>The UN did not condemn Iraq for attacking Iran, nor did it demand an Iraqi withdrawal from Iranian territory</li></ul><ul><li>The UN did not condemn the use of chemical weapons against Iran, despite the fact that it was a violation of the Geneva convention</li></ul><ul><li>When the Israel-Lebanon war started in 1982, Iran send 1000 soldiers to Lebanon, in order to gather support for Iran and the revolution in the Muslim world. The Lebanese who received training by those Iranians became known as Hezbollah</li></ul><ul><li>Iran intervened to liberate the French hostages (in return the French agreed to stop selling arms to Saddam Hussein and payed a considerable amount of money). This deal was called off, because the French opposition (led by Jaques Chirac) offered the hostage takers of Hezbollah more favorable conditions under the precondition that the release of the hostages was delayed until after the French election</li></ul><ul><li>Rafsandjani forced Khomenei to accept the ceasefire offered by Iraq<br /></li></ul><ul><li>After the death of Khomenei, Rafsandjani guided the assembly of religious scholars to elect Khamenei as new supreme leader</li></ul><ul><li>In August 1998, the Taliban killed nine Iranian diplomats in Masar-i-Sharif. In response, Iran prepared to go to war with the Taliban. In order to really international support, they addressed the Afghanistan committee at the UN, the only forum where Iran and the US both sat together. For the first time, a US foreign minister met with a foreign minister of the Islamic Republic. At least that's what the US believed. Actually, nobody of the US delegation knew the Iranian foreign minister. Finally, Kofi Annan revealed the Americans that it was not the foreign minister but his deputy. Khatami, the Iranian president, had downgraded the level, to appease his domestic rivals.</li></ul>

Iran & The West

If you are interested in learning about Iranian history, I recommend you the BBC documentary 'Iran & The West: The Man Who Changed The World'. It is a three part series, featuring interviews with most of the relevant actors.

First part: the revolution and hostage crisis

interesting points:

• Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran, was the only one out of four student leaders who opposed the occupation of the US embassy

• The occupation of the US embassy started without Khomeini being informed. When he learned the news, he was first against the occupation and ordered the Foreign Minister to get the students out of the US embassy. But then flipped and gave his blessing to the occupation. This move, which forced the entire Iranian government to resign, pushed the moderates out of the revolution. Khomeini became supreme leader.

• The hostage taking was initially undertaken to force the US to send the Shah, who was at the time in the US, back to Iran. But it continued after the Shah left the US. For the release of the hostages, the US returned assets to Iran that President Carter had frozen before.
  

If you are interested in learning about Iranian history, I recommend you the BBC documentary '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iar_1OKOmc&feature=related">Iran & The West: The Man Who Changed The World</a>'. It is a three part series, featuring interviews with most of the relevant actors.<br /><br />First part: the revolution and hostage crisis<br /><br />interesting points:<br /><ul><li>Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran, was the only one out of four student leaders who opposed the occupation of the US embassy</li></ul><ul><li>The occupation of the US embassy started without Khomeini being informed. When he learned the news, he was first against the occupation and ordered the Foreign Minister to get the students out of the US embassy. But then flipped and gave his blessing to the occupation. This move, which forced the entire Iranian government to resign, pushed the moderates out of the revolution. Khomeini became supreme leader.</li></ul><ul><li>The hostage taking was initially undertaken to force the US to send the Shah, who was at the time in the US, back to Iran. But it continued after the Shah left the US. For the release of the hostages, the US returned assets to Iran that President Carter had frozen before.<br /></li></ul>

Who is misreading Iran now? On facts and opinions

A very interesting piece on Iran appeared in Foreign Policy today. Claiming that much of the reporting on Iran is based on political preferences and ideologies, the authors argue that the West has a distorted image of the realities on the ground. Those distorted perceptions lead to bad policy decisions.

Fact-based reporting and writing has been replaced by ideology-driven reporting, where facts are disregarded or not properly investigated. The authors focus on the reporting of the Green Movement in Iran, which has been portrayed as a democratic uprising against an evil dictator.

As a little known fact I would like to add that Mousavi accused Ahmadinejad in the pre-election presidential debates that he was too soft on the British when he returned the sailors that were captured in Iranian waters.

Although I'm sure that all writers of the spectrum, from Noam Chomskey to Bill Kristol (and Dustin Dehez, I might add) have good intentions, I wonder why some disregard facts. What is the benefit? Could anything good come out of a policy recommendation that only considers facts selectively?

In my friend's Dustin case, he wrote a piece on Iran (in German) without even mentioning the three negotiation offers by Iran. Obviously, he did not mention them because they do not fit in the picture. But shouldn't the picture change when facts undermine them?

Another example is the Israeli Ambassador here in Brussels: I saw him at a lecture the other night, where he outlined the Israeli policy that led to the Freedom Flotilla incident. In order to prove his point, he wilfully misrepresented historical facts (Hamas came to power by a coup d'etat), inaccuracies (there is no shortage of anything in Gaza, they even have shoes. Well, that is correct, but Israel let shoes into Gaza only in April 2010) and terminology (the siege is no blockade, the blockade is legitimate, there is no blockade etc.).

Instead of winning support, he clearly lost support in the audience. He did not help Israel that night. Instead of explaining the reasons for Israel's behaviour, he twisted facts to prove his point and lost sympathies of people who felt fooled by his statements.

Seems to be an evident thing to say but we all would be better off if we would base our opinion on facts and not vice versa.

A very interesting piece on Iran appeared in <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/14/whos_really_misreading_tehran?page=0,0">Foreign Policy</a> today. Claiming that much of the reporting on Iran is based on political preferences and ideologies, the authors argue that the West has a distorted image of the realities on the ground. Those distorted perceptions lead to bad policy decisions.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Fact-based reporting and writing has been replaced by ideology-driven reporting, where facts are disregarded or not properly investigated. The authors focus on the reporting of the Green Movement in Iran, which has been portrayed as a democratic uprising against an evil dictator.<br /><br />As a little known fact I would like to add that Mousavi accused Ahmadinejad in the <a href="http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=da9ab6556a3163919062">pre-election presidential debates</a> that he was too soft on the British when he returned the sailors that were captured in Iranian waters.<br /><br />Although I'm sure that all writers of the spectrum, from Noam Chomskey to Bill Kristol (and Dustin Dehez, I might add) have good intentions, I wonder why some disregard facts. What is the benefit? Could anything good come out of a policy recommendation that only considers facts selectively?<br /><br />In my friend's Dustin case, he wrote a <a href="http://www.kas.de/wf/de/33.19272/">piece on Iran</a> (in German) without even mentioning the three negotiation offers by Iran. Obviously, he did not mention them because they do not fit in the picture. But shouldn't the picture change when facts undermine them?<br /><br />Another example is the Israeli Ambassador here in Brussels: I saw him at a lecture the other night, where he outlined the Israeli policy that led to the Freedom Flotilla incident. In order to prove his point, he wilfully misrepresented historical facts (Hamas came to power by a coup d'etat), inaccuracies (there is no shortage of anything in Gaza, they even have shoes. Well, that is correct, but Israel <a href="http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTI4MjkyMDc5Ng=="> let shoes into Gaza only in April 2010</a>) and terminology (the siege is no blockade, the blockade is legitimate, there is no blockade etc.).<br /><br />Instead of winning support, he clearly lost support in the audience. He did not help Israel that night. Instead of explaining the reasons for Israel's behaviour, he twisted facts to prove his point and lost sympathies of people who felt fooled by his statements.<br /><br />Seems to be an evident thing to say but we all would be better off if we would base our opinion on facts and not vice versa.<br /></span>

Open Saudi skies for Israel (?)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend... and his bombers shall have open skies to attack my enemy's nuclear facilities.

The Times reports that Saudi Arabia has been conducting tests to stand down its air defences and allow Israeli bombers through unharmed. Granting Israeli jets free passage through a narrow corridor of northern Saudi airspace would considerably reduce the distance of the bombing run.

The Kingdom has officially denied this claim, calling it "slanderous and false" and reiterating its "position of opposition and rejection of the violation of its sovereignty and the use of its airspace or territory by anyone to attack any country".

According to The Times, the four main targets are said to be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. These targets lie up to 2,250km from Israel, which is the outer limit of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An air strike would involve multiple waves of bombers, presumably crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq - which would require at least tacit approval from Washington for the strike.

The article quotes a US defence source who claims that the understanding between Israel and Saudi Arabia has been done with the agreement of the US State Department.

An interesting aspect of this issue is the regional dimension - the article refers to a claim by 'Israeli intelligence sources' that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are just as concerned (to put it mildly) as Israel and the west over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.

If this story is true - and we should not consider it a foregone conclusion - then it raises many questions. Is a strike on Iran a question of when not if? Is the ongoing diplomatic effort genuinely intended to bring about a peaceful resolution to the issue or is it merely a smokescreen intended to convince the world that a military solution is the only solution? If the diplomatic effort is genuine then at what point do we decide that it is not working and an air strike is the only solution?

Also, to what extent is Israel doing this at its own behest or as a US (and Saudi) proxy? What would be the repercussions of using Israel as a blunt instrument, diplomatically or otherwise?

<div align="justify">The enemy of my enemy is my friend... and his bombers shall have open skies to attack my enemy's nuclear facilities.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece">The Times</a> reports that Saudi Arabia has been conducting tests to stand down its air defences and allow Israeli bombers through unharmed. Granting Israeli jets free passage through a narrow corridor of northern Saudi airspace would considerably reduce the distance of the bombing run.<br /><br />The Kingdom has officially <a href="http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010061375182">denied</a> this claim, calling it "slanderous and false" and reiterating its "position of opposition and rejection of the violation of its sovereignty and the use of its airspace or territory by anyone to attack any country".<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />According to The Times, the four main targets are said to be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. These targets lie up to 2,250km from Israel, which is the outer limit of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An air strike would involve multiple waves of bombers, presumably crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq - which would require at least tacit approval from Washington for the strike.<br /><br />The article quotes a US defence source who claims that the understanding between Israel and Saudi Arabia has been done with the agreement of the US State Department.<br /><br />An interesting aspect of this issue is the regional dimension - the article refers to a claim by 'Israeli intelligence sources' that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are just as concerned (to put it mildly) as Israel and the west over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.<br /><br />If this story is true - and we should not consider it a foregone conclusion - then it raises many questions. Is a strike on Iran a question of when not if? Is the ongoing diplomatic effort genuinely intended to bring about a peaceful resolution to the issue or is it merely a smokescreen intended to convince the world that a military solution is the only solution? If the diplomatic effort is genuine then at what point do we decide that it is not working and an air strike is the only solution?<br /><br />Also, to what extent is Israel doing this at its own behest or as a US (and Saudi) proxy? What would be the repercussions of using Israel as a blunt instrument, diplomatically or otherwise?<br /></div></span>

Turkish Air Defense System Deployed to Syrian Border

Interesting news reach us from Turkey: the Turkish newspaper Hurryet reports that air defence systems have been deployed to the Syrian border. A source within the Turkish military was quoted that "this move aims at repelling a US or Israeli attack against Iran or Syria".

Al Manar TV, the Hizbollah media outlet, quotes a Turkish political analyst who said "“The news in Hurriyet daily is true. The air defense system was moved from Istanbul to Iskenderun to counter any surprise Israeli air raid, because in 2007 Israeli warplanes used the Turkish airspace to carry out air raids on Syrian targets. Thus Turkey took this precautionary measure so that what happened in 2007 would not happen again.”

In light of Turkey's role in the Iran nuclear fuel swap, it seems that Turkey is determined to support Iran's aspirations to master the nuclear fuel cycle. I think it's reasonable to ask when Turkey itself will declare activities to master the nuclear fuel cycle.

Interesting news reach us from Turkey: the Turkish newspaper Hurryet reports that air defence systems have been deployed to the Syrian border. A source within the Turkish military was quoted that "this move aims at repelling a US or Israeli attack against Iran or Syria".<br /><br />Al Manar TV, the Hizbollah media outlet, <a href="http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=137326&language=en">quotes a Turkish political analyst</a> who said "<span class="ArticleDetails">“The news in Hurriyet daily is true. The air defense system was moved from Istanbul to Iskenderun to counter any surprise Israeli air raid, because in 2007 Israeli warplanes used the Turkish airspace to carry out air raids on Syrian targets. Thus Turkey took this precautionary measure so that what happened in 2007 would not happen again.”<br /><br />In light of Turkey's role in the Iran nuclear fuel swap, it seems that Turkey is determined to support Iran's aspirations to master the nuclear fuel cycle. I think it's reasonable to ask when Turkey itself will declare activities to master the nuclear fuel cycle.<br /></span>

Ron Paul speaks out against the sanctions bill on Iran

Congressman Ron Paul from Texas is one of the few that publicly criticise the US Iran policy from within the US political system.

Last Thursday, the Congress passed the 'Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act', which effectively prohibits US firms to trade with countries that trade with Iran. Listen here to his 5 minute intervention, in which he compares the current developments regarding Iran with the build up to the war with Iraq in 2002.

Congressman Ron Paul from Texas is one of the few that publicly criticise the US Iran policy from within the US political system.<br /><br />Last Thursday, the Congress passed the 'Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act', which effectively prohibits US firms to trade with countries that trade with Iran. Listen <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QNx-QQ9knc&feature=player_embedded">here</a> to his 5 minute intervention, in which he compares the current developments regarding Iran with the build up to the war with Iraq in 2002.

DNI report: "We do not know whether Iran Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."

The Director of National Intelligence, who heads the 16 US intelligence services, published it's annual report to Congress on WMD developments in foreign countries. It contains some interesting information on what we know about the Iranian nuclear programme. Here we go:

"We continue to assess that Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons. Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.

During the reporting period, Iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure and continued uranium enrichment and activities related to its heavy water research reactor, despite multiple United Nations Security Council Resolutions since late 2006 calling for the suspension of those activities. Although Iran made progress in expanding its nuclear infrastructure during 2009, some obstacles slowed progress during this period."

The report goes on with the description of technical details of the Iranian nuclear activities.

So, what do we learn?
1) Iran acts in violation of several UN SC resolutions.
2) Iran has not yet made the decision to build the bomb.
3) We do not know whether the decision to build the bomb will ever be taken.

Well, that means that Iran is not building the bomb, I guess.

I think once that is clear, we can stop threatening Iran with sanctions or military intervention.

The Director of National Intelligence, who heads the 16 US intelligence services, published it's annual <a href="http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf">report</a> to Congress on WMD developments in foreign countries. It contains some interesting information on what we know about the Iranian nuclear programme. Here we go:<br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>"We continue to assess that Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons. Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.<br /><br />During the reporting period, Iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure and continued uranium enrichment and activities related to its heavy water research reactor, despite multiple United Nations Security Council Resolutions since late 2006 calling for the suspension of those activities. Although Iran made progress in expanding its nuclear infrastructure during 2009, some obstacles slowed progress during this period."</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>The report goes on with the description of technical details of the Iranian nuclear activities.<br /><br />So, what do we learn?<br />1) Iran acts in violation of several UN SC resolutions.<br />2) Iran has not yet made the decision to build the bomb.<br />3) We do not know whether the decision to build the bomb will ever be taken.<br /><br />Well, that means that Iran is not building the bomb, I guess.<br /><br />I think once that is clear, we can stop threatening Iran with sanctions or military intervention.<br /><br /><span dir="right"></span>

Brzezinski on Israel/Iran

In this interview with the Real News Network, Zbigniew Brzezinski underlines that an Israeli attack on Iran would be neither in the interest of Israel nor of the US. An attack would drive out the US of the Middle East and leave Israel without its most powerful ally.

Far from being a "peacenik", Brezezinski admited in this interview with the French Le Nouvel Observateur that the US engaged the communist government in Afghanistan even before the Russians invaded in 1979. Although he denied this revelation in later interviews, he wholeheartedly supported the support of the Taliban against the Russians ("Qu'est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l'histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l'empire soviétique? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l'Europe centrale et la fin de
la guerre froide?"). See a transcript of the interview in English here.

NB: Regarding missile defence, Brzezinski said in another interview that the "missile shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection." Nothing to add.

In this <a href="http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4715">interview</a> with the <span style="font-style: italic;">Real News Network</span>, Zbigniew Brzezinski underlines that an Israeli attack on Iran would be neither in the interest of Israel nor of the US. An attack would drive out the US of the Middle East and leave Israel without its most powerful ally.<br /><br />Far from being a "peacenik", Brezezinski admited in this <a href="http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p1732/articles/a19460-oui_la_cia_est_entree_en_afghanistan_avant_les_russes.html">interview</a> with the French <span style="font-style: italic;">Le Nouvel Observateur</span> that the US engaged the communist government in Afghanistan even before the Russians invaded in 1979. Although he denied this revelation in later interviews, he wholeheartedly supported the support of the Taliban against the Russians ("Qu'est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l'histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l'empire soviétique? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l'Europe centrale et la fin de<br />la guerre froide?"). See a transcript of the interview in English <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html">here</a>.<br /><br />NB: Regarding missile defence, Brzezinski said in another <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-obama-flubbed-his-missile-message/">interview</a> that the "missile shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection." Nothing to add.

Iran proposes new nuclear swap deal

The Kuala Lumpur News report:

"The head of the Iranian atomic energy agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, has told local television the country will make concessions to the West by exchanging Tehran's low-grade uranium for highly enriched uranium that it needs for its medical research. Salehi said the new proposal for a nuclear deal could involve 60 percent of Iran's low enriched uranium being shipped to the West, all in one batch directly from Iran.

Iran failed to accept a draft nuclear deal by the West last November. Part of Iran's low-grade stockpile was to have been sent to France and Russia for further enrichment before eventually being sent back to Iran. Eventually, Iran made a counter-offer calling for the exchange to take place gradually in 400 kilogram batches.

Atomic energy chief Salehi has now said Iran will be willing to deliver the total amount of fuel in one go, on the condition that the exchange take place inside Iran and simultaneously. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in February that Tehran would produce around 20 percent of highly enriched uranium fuel itself."

This proposal is similar to Iran's last proposal. The only differerence is that Iran proposes to swap all material it needs at once. Iran still insists that the exchange of the material is done on its own territory. The US offered to do the exchange outside of Iran, which was unacceptable for Iran. The Iranians simply do not trust its antagonists that they will abide to the deal.

Since the US and its Western allies did not even discuss Iran's last proposal, it is very likely that they will disregard this offer as well.

The Kuala Lumpur News <a href="http://www.kualalumpurnews.net/story/613360">report</a>:<br /><blockquote>"The head of the Iranian atomic energy agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, has told local television the country will make concessions to the West by exchanging Tehran's low-grade uranium for highly enriched uranium that it needs for its medical research. Salehi said the new proposal for a nuclear deal could involve 60 percent of Iran's low enriched uranium being shipped to the West, all in one batch directly from Iran.<br /><br />Iran failed to accept a draft nuclear deal by the West last November. Part of Iran's low-grade stockpile was to have been sent to France and Russia for further enrichment before eventually being sent back to Iran. Eventually, Iran made a counter-offer calling for the exchange to take place gradually in 400 kilogram batches.<br /><br />Atomic energy chief Salehi has now said Iran will be willing to deliver the total amount of fuel in one go, on the condition that the exchange take place inside Iran and simultaneously. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in February that Tehran would produce around 20 percent of highly enriched uranium fuel itself."</blockquote>This proposal is similar to Iran's last proposal. The only differerence is that Iran proposes to swap all material it needs at once. Iran still insists that the exchange of the material is done on its own territory. The US offered to do the exchange outside of Iran, which was unacceptable for Iran. The Iranians simply do not trust its antagonists that they will abide to the deal.<br /><br />Since the US and its Western allies did not even discuss Iran's last proposal, it is very likely that they will disregard this offer as well.<br /><blockquote></blockquote>

Speculation about Iran war preparation

Three days ago, the Scotland's Sunday Herald published an article about a weapons shipment from the US to the US/UK airbase on Diego Garcia. "According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures. [...] Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs." The article concludes: "Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities."

Whoever those "experts" are, this news could indicate that a strike on Iran is in preparation. This would not come as a surprise, bearing in mind the continuous threat of the use of force by the US and Israel against Iran. On the other hand, a quick Google search reveals that Blu-110 and Blu-117 are not exactly what you could describe as bunker busters. They are mainly used as precision-guided bombs for all sorts of targets. Hence, they could be tagged for Iran as well as any other of the many places the US decided to bombard on a regular base.

<span style=";font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" ><span lang="EN-GB">Three days ago, the </span></span><span style=";font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" class="t13" >Scotland's Sunday Herald</span><span style=";font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" ><span lang="EN-GB"> published an <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151">article</a> about a weapons shipment from the US to the US/UK airbase on Diego Garcia. "According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures. </span><span lang="EN-GB">[...]</span></span><span style=";font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" > Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs." The article concludes: "Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities."<br /></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Times;font-size:100%;" lang="EN-GB" ><span style=";font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" ><br /><span style="font-family: times new roman;font-size:100%;" >Whoever those "experts" are, this news could indicate that a strike on Iran is in preparation. This would not come as a surprise, bearing in mind the continuous threat of the use of force by the US and Israel against Iran. On the other hand, a quick Google search reveals that Blu-110 and Blu-117 are not exactly what you could describe as bunker busters. They are mainly used as precision-guided bombs for all sorts of targets. Hence, they could be tagged for Iran as well as any other of the many places the US decided to bombard on a regular base.</span></span> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->