WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2007-02-22 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
New tensions over Iran’s nuclear plans
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The aircraft carrier USS Stennis adds to US power in the Gulf
The tension over Iran’s nuclear programme is increasing, with the expiry on Wednesday of a Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.
At the same time, the BBC has reported that the United States has drawn up plans for an attack on Iran to cover two contingencies – the confirmed development of nuclear weapons by Iran, or backing by Iran for a major attack on US troops in Iraq.
The first contingency is full of uncertainties. Iran says it is simply exercising its right to provide fuel to make nuclear energy and that it has no intention of building a bomb.
The problem is that the same technology used to make fuel for nuclear power can then be developed to make fuel for a nuclear explosion.
So how can Iran’s intentions be judged?
The signs are that Iran will not comply with the Security Council demands
The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran halt its activities in order to allow for negotiations. Iran has been offered civilian nuclear technology for power if it gives up enrichment of fuel itself. The council has imposed sanctions designed to limit Iran’s access to nuclear technology.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that there can be no pre-conditions for talks. Indeed, he has proposed that Western governments suspend enrichment themselves before any talks.
The signs are, therefore, that Iran will not comply with the Security Council demands and that therefore further sanctions will be considered. The US will press for them. Russia and China will question them.
Mutual freeze?
The UN’s nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is to report this week on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand.
The IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei warned against ‘hype’ over Iran’s nuclear abilities
The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, is calling for a mutual freeze – by Iran on its nuclear development and by the Security Council on sanctions. No freeze is likely.
Mr ElBaradei told the Financial Times this week that Iran might be five or 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb. He warned against “hype” over Iran’s nuclear activities.
Meanwhile, the US continues to apply pressure on Iran and is expected to move a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Gulf region soon.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney said in Newsweek magazine that American allies in the region “want us to have a major presence there” and that the carriers would send ” a strong signal” that the US would “work with friends and allies to oppose the Iranian threat”.
Iraq linkage
A new element emerging over the last couple of weeks is the linkage the US is making between Iran and events inside Iraq. It has publicised its contention that Iran is behind sophisticated technology that is being used by some Shia groups against US and British forces in Iraq.
The US claims Iran is supplying weapons to Iraq insurgents
The timing of this claim, rejected by Iran, is significant, because it ties in with expiry of the Security Council demand on 21 February. It adds a new component into the equation.
The US can now claim a casus belli, if there is a major attack on US forces in Iraq that can be linked to Iran. Such linkage of course is not easy to prove, and even the evidence that the US has produced so far has been challenged.
But the legality of any attack against Iran will be hard to establish, to say the least, without clear evidence, especially as the evidence against Iraq proved unreliable.
Danger
All this makes for an extremely delicate and dangerous period ahead.
It does not mean that a US attack on Iran is imminent. The BBC information is that the US has chosen targets in Iran and has considered two scenarios for an attack.
The targets include not only Iranian nuclear sites but Iranian missile sites and other major military infrastructure.
This would be in line with US doctrine that, in a conflict, an attack has to cover the range of military targets. This happened in the two Gulf wars and Israel adopted similar tactics in its attacks on Hezbollah last year.
But it is not an either-or situation.
Diplomacy
There is a diplomatic effort at play here as well.
Washington hopes that its pressure will trigger not necessarily a war but a debate inside Iran that will either lead to a change of policy (maybe through a change in government) or a much slower and more cautious Iranian approach.
It is also not clear that within the Bush administration these days there is total support for any attack on Iran. The influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems to be growing at the expense of Vice-President Cheney.
We have seen the US entering negotiations over North Korea, leading to an interim agreement under which the North’s claimed nuclear weapon is being left to one side.
Source: BBC News
URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637961…br>
[Posted by: ]