Shayan Ghajar
As tensions between Iran and the United States reach levels unprecedented in recent years, the United States seeks to pressure nations and corporations with a stake in Iran’s oil industry to join in an embargo on the Islamic Republic’s most lucrative source of revenue. more»
Staff
The Iranian response to the recent IAEA report has been quick, dismissive, and defiant.
Lawmakers, politicians, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp commanders have bluntly attacked the report and questioned the credibility and independence of the IAEA, charging the Agency with illegally conducting its proceedings and accepting fabricated evidence. All have vehemently reiterated a commitment to the continuing progress of Iran’s nuclear program. more»
Shayan Ghajar
On October 16, in an otherwise unremarkable and routine speech, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dropped a potent political bomb by suggesting that Iran could easily transition from a system with a presidency to a parliamentary-based system with an appointed prime minister. The comment, however brief, was certainly intended as a major warning to the politically rebellious faction spearheaded by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and may even indicate a sincere intent to abolish the presidency in Iran. Indeed, a number of statements by powerful elites before and after Khamenei’s speech seem to lend credence to the idea that Ahmadinejad may be one of Iran’s last presidents.
more»
Iran Plays Into Hands of Its Critics
Geneive Abdo
President Obama’s critics –including Israeli leaders and key figures in Iran’s opposition movement – are looking pretty smart right now. In ignoring the United Nation’s deadline to respond to a draft proposal to cut its nuclear stockpiles, Iran has lent credibility, at least for the moment, to the view that Tehran is negotiating in bad faith in order to buy time on its nuclear program.
The United Nations gave Iran until October 23 to provide an answer to a draft deal worked out last week in Vienna. The proposal requires Tehran to ship its uranium to Russia for enrichment to a level that is suitable for nuclear fuel but insufficient for producing a nuclear weapon. World leaders believe this plan will deter Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
But Iran’s political elites have rejected the deal and say they will offer an alternative proposal, perhaps this week. In the view of the skeptics, Iran’s rejection of the deal was predictable; anyone who expected otherwise either does not understand the Islamic republic or is naïve, they argue.
Iran’s behavior, in fact, follows a familiar script from past negotiations over its nuclear program and other issues. Last week was no different. At first, Iranian politicians appeared receptive toward the Vienna proposal. But as soon as the limelight in Vienna had faded, reactions from within Iran were skeptical at best. Mohammed Reza Bahonar, the deputy parliament speaker, was quoted by Fars and IRNA, official state news agencies, as saying: “The United States demanded Iran ship uranium abroad, in return for getting fuel back. But Iran does not accept this.”
http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8808010800
Then, Iran’s Speaker of Parliament, Ali Larijani, accused the IAEA of tricking Iran. He warned that world powers involved in an IAEA-brokered draft proposal on the nuclear fuel supply intend to “deceive” Tehran.
“I think that Westerners are insisting to go in a direction of deception of some sort or imposing some issues on us in a way,” Larijani told the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA).
“They said that we will give you the 20 percent (enriched uranium) fuel when you give us your (low) enriched uranium. We see no link between these two issues,” he added.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=109516§ionid=351020104
Larijani termed such an exchange as illegal and illogical and said the United States intends to “get the 4.5 percent-enriched uranium from Iran and change it into fuel through countries such as France and Russia.”
“They may think that they can extract the enriched materials out of Iran. We hope the Iranians will pay due attention to the issue,” he said.
While Parliament does not have a direct say on the draft plan, the comments from high-ranking parliamentary officials seemed to reflect the resistance by influential politicians within Iran. This raises an obvious question: Are the negotiators Iran places at the table empowered to make decisions, or are they simply messengers for more powerful politicians back in Tehran?
Prominent nuclear experts, such as David Albright, the head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said that Iran’s response was “a bad sign.” He believes that Iran is looking for modifications so as to “fundamentally (weaken) the deal.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE59M2GS20091023
Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Monday that Iran will comment on the draft proposal “within the next few days,”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=109644§ionid=351020101
Western media reports evaluated this response as a positive sign: “Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki’s comments are the first official sign Iran could accept parts of a UN proposal for its nuclear program.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8325660.stm
Iran’s intentions may become clear later this week, when it is might submit its own proposal – if indeed it does.
Edith Novy and Asadui Safo contributed to this report