[JNV] Iran briefing

[Justice Not Vengeance]

Dear friends

Please find below a JNV briefing on the current, rather confusing,
Iran situation.

Best wishes

Milan Rai
JNV


------


Israel's Amber Light

ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN NOT IMMEDIATE: BUSH TRIES DIPLOMACY HALF-HEARTEDLY
JNV Anti-War Briefing 115 (17 July 2008)

BUSH SENDS DIPLOMAT TO MEET IRANIANS

On 16 July, US President George W. Bush stunned observers by agreeing
to send a high-level US diplomat to Geneva to meet Iranian negotiators
face-to-face as part of the EU-led talks to resolve the Iranian
nuclear crisis. As the Independent pointed out, State Dept.
spokesperson Sean McCormack had said just the month before that the US
would boycott such meetings unless 'Iran suddenly has a change of
tune'. (17 July, p.23 <http://tinyurl.com/633cn3>)

    In the event, it was the US that 'changed its tune'. Analyst Steve
Clemons of the New America Foundation said: 'I think it's clear that
Bush has pushed Cheney back twice now' (referring to the recent
decision to remove North Korea from the US 'terrorist' list). (FT, 17
July, p.5 <tinyurl.com/6jwgmj>)

    The Bush U-turn on Iraq had two features. First, he dropped the
demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment before being allowed
face-to-face meetings on the subject (US officials have met Iranian
diplomats, but only to discuss security in Iraq). Secondly, he
accepted the EU 'freeze-for-freeze' proposal, whereby the West holds
off on further sanctions for a set period while Iran holds off on
escalating uranium enrichment. 'Previously, Washington had stated that
if Iran continued enriching uranium, the international pressure would
only increase.' (Telegraph, 17 July, p.15 <http://tinyurl.com/5emnvj>)

    The Bush diplomatic opening is very limited, however. William
Burns, the third most senior State Department official, an
undersecretary of state, is indeed being sent to Geneva to sit in the
same room as Iranian negotiators, but his role is officially to do no
more than reiterate the US line - on this one occasion.

THE OTHER PROPOSALS

The coverage of these recent developments has conformed to the
Chomsky-Herman propaganda model of the mass media, demonstrating once
again the key role of media self-censorship in maintaining what they
call 'brainwashing under freedom'.

    In the current reporting, the starting point of discussion is
invariably the EU-led proposals put to Iran on 14 June, and the
question is whether Tehran will accept this framework for
negotiations. What is almost totally absent is any awareness that Iran
had made its own highly significant proposals on 13 May this year.

    One rare recognition of this simple reality came in an important
commentary by Sir John Thomson. Thomson, a former UK Permanent
Representative at the UN, was told by Iranian Foreign Minister,
Manouchehr Mottaki, in early July that EU negotiator Javier Solana
'had assured him the Iranian package could be part of the agenda for
substantive negotiations between Iran and the 5-plus-1' (the five
permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany).
(Independent on Sunday, 13 July, p.56 <tinyurl.com/59jth3>)

    So the negotiations are proceeding because Iran's negotiating
proposals (which have been almost entirely erased from history by the
Western media) have been admitted to the negotiating chamber.

RED LINES

Ali-Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister who advises Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, on foreign affairs, made a
critical point on 1 July. Apart from saying it was 'expedient' for
Iran to resume nuclear negotiations on the 5-plus-1 offer, Velayati
said: 'They say Iran should not make an atomic bomb and we say Iran
needs nuclear energy. These two principles are your and our red lines
which should be the basis for negotiations and [can be] agreed on'.
(FT, 2 July, <tinyurl.com/5ejuqk>)

    But how can these two 'red lines' both be agreed as a basis for
negotiation? By going back to Iran's 13 May proposal for uranium
enrichment to continue on Iranian soil=97but under international
control.

    On the basis of his discussions with Foreign Minister Mottaki,
Thomson believes that Iran is 'ready to make some compromise
agreements (as yet unspecified) on Middle Eastern issues that worry
the west'. And on the nuclear issue 'it is ready to compromise to the
extent of putting its enrichment-related facilities under the control
of an international consortium=97including, for example, France, Germany
and the UK=97which would then operate a modern, commercially oriented
business producing nuclear fuel in Iran for sale globally. This is not
what the 5-plus-1 are asking for, but in my view it is the best that
is obtainable, and so long as it remains in force it precludes Iran
from making a nuclear weapon.' (IOS, 13 July, as above. See also
<mit.edu/stgs/irancrisis.html>.)

WHAT OF THE ISRAELI THREATS?
So while Ayatollah Khamanei gives the 'green light' for negotiations
on the basis of rather vague 5-plus-1 proposals, President Bush is
reported to have given the 'amber light' for an Israeli airstrike on
Iran. Despite this, an Israeli strike looks unlikely, for the next few
months at least.

    The Sunday Times reported: ' "Amber means get on with your
preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're
ready," the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that
they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to
use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.'

    This is not a formality: 'Nor is it certain that Bush's amber
light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal
Iranian hostility. Tehran's test launches of medium-range ballistic
missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly
judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not
represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.
"It's really all down to the Israelis," the Pentagon official added.
"This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been
decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear
threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but
force will deter Iran." The official added that Israel had not so far
presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. "If there is no
solid plan, the amber will never turn to green," he said.' (Sunday
Times, 13 July <http://tinyurl.com/6gppuc>)

    Retired US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, concluded from the
Israeli aerial exercises in June that 'Israel does not have the
capability to effectively attack Iran's nuclear facilities.'
Interviewed by Robert Naiman of the Huffington Post website, Gardiner
pointed to a 2006 MIT paper by Whitney Raas and Austin Long, assessing
Israeli military planners' think ing. Raas and Long believe Israel
would want to attack the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the
uranium conversion facility at Esfahan and the heavy water plant at
Arak=97with a combined total of 36 aircraft.    (With supporting
aircraft, this would match up with the reports of a 100-aircraft
exercise in June.)

    'An Israeli strike would not be much of a strike,' Gardiner says.
The US would probably think in terms of about 10 times more aim points
for a similar strike, he observes. (Robert Naiman, 'Is Israel Really
Preparing to Attack Iran? Col. Gardiner Says No', 20 June
<tinyurl.com/4r5y43>)

    On this analysis, an Israeli strike could not destroy even the
three best-known Iranian nuclear facilities, never mind facilities
which might be hidden. The strike could not meet the minimum required
by the US, which would want the assault to 'set back the Iranians by
at least five years for an attack to be considered a success',
according to the Pentagon source consulted by the Sunday Times. It
appears, therefore, that there will never be a 'solid' Israeli plan to
strike Iran's nuclear facilities, and so, if it acts rationally, the
White House will never green light such an attack.

OBAMA MANIA

The danger, of course, is that the White House will not act
rationally, particularly if it sees the Bush 'legacy' being lost to an
incoming Obama administration. Hence, perhaps, the startling decision
to mimic the Democratic presidential candidate in his popular decision
to offer unconditional talks with official enemies. In Nov. 2007,
before the publication of the NIE that Iran had no nuclear weapons
programme, a poll found 73% of people in the US favouring nonviolent
options in dealing with Iran; 45% opposed violence even if diplomacy
and sanctions failed (only 46% favoured force in those circumstances).
<tinyurl.com/5no6ox>