Iran's Nuclear Issue - The US Heightens The Pressures With 'War Or Diplomacy' Signals.

*** Michael Klare See 3 Reasons For The US To Attack Iran 'Some Time This Spring Or Summer, Barring An Unexpected Turnaround By Tehran' - Proof Of This Lies 'Half-Hidden' In Bush's Recent Statements Which, If Pieced Together, Provide A Casus Belli'

*** For Tehran To Avert War, It Must Accept Being Just Like The Other Big States In The Middle East And, Stop Uranium Enrichment, Says A Ranking US Diplomat Who Believes Iran Wants Either To Control Iraq Or Have A Weakened Arab Neighbour With The Shi'ites Having An Autonomy Similar To That Of The Kurds In The Northern Area

TEHRAN - A highly-placed APS source here says the US now is "sending us mixed signals that the nuclear issue will be resolved either by war or by diplomacy... and is telling us either way the decision is ours". But the problem is that the Supreme Leader of the Shi'ite theocracy, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has not yet decided on the final course Iran will take in the nuclear stand-off with the West.

Two US aircraft carrier groups are now stationed in the Persian Gulf and a third such group is likely to be sent to the area. French and Saudi forces are said to be preparing to conduct joint exercises in the Gulf region.

From the US standpoint, a war would be the last resort. On Feb. 26, the five permanent UN Security Council (UNSC) members and Germany met in London and discussed ways to resolve the stand-off with Iran. After the meeting they said they were committed to seeking "a negotiated solution". But they did not rule out sanctions tougher than the ones issued by the UNSC on Feb. 23.

The US and the other five powers are working on tougher pressures on Iran. Among other measures, they are debating whether to target Bank Sepah, a leading Iranian bank, with the UNSC sanctions. Such a move would be in line with a campaign by the US to persuade European states to follow its example and take steps against Sepah which would exclude it from international markets.

In January, Washington barred US banks from doing business with Sepah because of what the Bush administration said was the bank's connections with Iran's missile programme and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC is said to control the nuclear programme.

The January decision effectively stopped Sepah from carrying out dollar transactions. But moves in other jurisdictions would have a greater effect. Bank Sepah's wholly owned subsidiary, Bank Sepah International, claims it has "relationships in over 45 countries worldwide" as well as offices in London, Paris, Frankfurt and Rome.

EU states have resisted taking action against Sepah, despite a campaign waged by Deputy US Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt and Treasury Under-Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey. States such as Germany and Sweden say imposing measures against the bank would be legally difficult unless Sepah is specifically named by a UNSC resolution.

Bank Sepah itself denounces what it says are Washington's "fabricated statements and unfounded allegations", adding that it "will spare no effort to seek righteous remedies in the near future". However, the FT on March 1 quoted European diplomats as saying they were discussing whether to include measures against Bank Sepah in a new resolution.

The issue was addressed on March 1 by top diplomats from the permanent five UNSC members and Germany, who discussed possible Iran sanctions in a telephone conference. The diplomats said no decision had yet been made about Sepah.

But, in line with the policy of exercising incremental pressure on Tehran, which missed a Feb. 21 deadline to curb its nuclear programme, the US and the EU want to strengthen measures set out by the resolution of Dec. 23.

The Dec. 23 resolution targeted seven organisations the UN said were involved in Iran's nuclear programme, three involved in its missile programme, and 12 people connected with either or both programmes. As well as adding new names to the lists, the EU and US are said to want a new resolution to impose a travel ban on the people identified in the Dec. 23 measure - previously only subject to softer travel restrictions. In addition, the six powers are discussing whether to impose limited restrictions on arms dealings with Iran - a measure Russia is likely to resist - and whether to include language which would deter states from subsidising trade with Iran.

The APS source in Tehran says the leadership of the theocracy is divided on the final course to take. Moderate conservatives want a diplomatic solution, while radicals now standing behind President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad are "confrontational" - although "some of them do not want a war". Ahmadi-Nejad is visiting Saudi Arabia on March 3.

Meanwhile, the UN sanctions and measures in the West inspired by the stand-off are affecting Iran in many ways. Among other developments in the past week, Tehran was ending all scholarships to study in the US, Canada and Britain because Iranians there were barred from signing up for nuclear sciences and similar subjects. Iran's Deputy Science Minister Mahmoud Mollabashi on Feb. 28 was quoted by the state radio as saying: "Because these countries do not accept Iranian students in modern technology majors such as nuclear sciences, the Science Ministry will not send students".

Tehran faces further steps for ignoring the Feb. 21 deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, a process which can make power plant fuel or, if uranium is greatly enriched, material for nuclear warheads.

Mollabashi said: "When these countries do not accept students in majors in which Iran needs experts, there is no need to send students there", adding that any students who wanted to study in those three countries could still go there at their own cost. But Mollabashi did not mention if any scholarships to France and Germany were also being stopped.

Relations with Canada, a popular destination for Iranian immigrants, have been soured particularly over the death in custody in 2003 of Zahra Kazemi, a photo-journalist who had both Iranian and Canadian nationality. Kazemi died after being arrested for taking photographs of a demonstration outside a prison in Tehran. Some Iranian authorities said she died of a stroke, but a commission appointed by Iran's then President Mohammad Khatami found that Kazemi had died of a fractured skull caused by the impact of a hard object. The detention in 2006 for four months of an Iranian-Canadian writer, Ramin Jahanbegloo, put a further strain on ties.

Blair's Warning: UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on Feb. 27 said Tehran was making a "big miscalculation" by refusing to suspend its nuclear enrichment, and urged the international community to take "tough, clear and unified" action by strengthening sanctions against Iran. But Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Tehran Iran would never again suspend enrichment, which the US has made a precondition for talks. Mottaki said: "Suspending uranium enrichment is an illegal and illegitimate demand. And it will never happen".

Blair said at his monthly news conference he believed Mottaki's comments - and similar remarks on Feb. 25 by President Ahmadi-Nejad - were "very worrying", adding: "Yet again they're indicating they want to defy the international community". Blair refused to speculate on possible military options against Tehran, but said: "people want a political and diplomatic solution to this. The tougher and clearer and more unified we are, the better results we will get and the less the whole issue of military action arises".

Ahmadi-Nejad on Feb. 25 said on state radio he had no intention of halting Iran's nuclear programme, likening it to an unstoppable train without brakes.

Blair asserted that limited sanctions imposed on Iran since Dec. 23 had begun to turn domestic opinion against Ahmadi-Nejad. Western officials have cited what they say is growing scepticism of Ahmadi-Nejad's legislative record from Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei as proof that his influence is faltering.

Blair said: "A tough message has yielded results", adding that the tougher the West was in insisting that Iran comply "the better the result will be". He said Britain and its allies were "perfectly happy to hold talks with" Iran but claimed there was little point in a dialogue while it refused to meet international obligations to stop its nuclear drive, adding: "The question is, What is the conversation about? Given that they are saying they are not going to suspend enrichment, they are still supporting extremism in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Palestine and they are not showing any signs they are prepared to stop doing that".

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack last week said: "I would expect the nature of the [new UNSC] resolution to be incremental. This is designed to proportionally increase pressure on Tehran". McCormack said limited economic sanctions against Iran implemented in December had produced surprising results, adding: "It started a very public discussion in Iran about the wisdom of their current course of defying the international system".

Ahmadinejad said Iran had "no brake and no reverse gear" on its nuclear policies, prompting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to say Tehran needed a "stop button" for its programme. US Vice President Dick Cheney said all options were on the table; and an Iranian deputy foreign minister responded by saying Iran was prepared even for war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he was worried by talk of possible military strikes against Iran, which he said had become more frequent. An article in the New Yorker magazine recently said a Pentagon panel had been created to plan a bombing which could be enacted within 24 hours of a decision by President George W. Bush to attack Iran.

Ahmadi-Nejad on Feb. 25 said: "Iran's nuclear train is racing ahead, and it does not have any brake or reverse gear, because we have uninstalled and dropped them away. They [the West] claim they support dialogue and logic, but when they are about to lose the game they resort to military force. Yet they should know that even their weapons are of no use today".

The Crisis: Hardliners starting with Ahmadi-Nejad staunchly deny that sanctions can cause irreparable damage to Iran, and Khamenei has described "propaganda about existence of a state of emergency in Iran" as false. Yet the impact of sanctions is beginning to be felt by ordinary Iranians. An un-named head of an importing enterprise in Tehran was last week quoted as saying: "What good is nuclear fuel for an unfinished nuclear plant [in Bushehr] going to bring to us if our people have to go under sanctions and get poorer and poorer every day? Importing is already difficult, and several major international banks have stopped dealings with Iran. We are dependent on imports in many fields and many businesses can be greatly affected. Less business would mean less employment and economic stagnation".

An un-named analyst in Tehran was quoted as saying: "Even before existing financial sanctions were enforced, doing business with the outside world had slowed down. Iran is seeking alternative methods to remedy this, like earmarking a US$5 bn credit line to Turkey. This will allow Iran to make imports from Western countries through Turkey, but the process will be more costly for us and benefit the Turks".

Discussion of Iran's nuclear policies by political parties, individuals and the press has long been banned by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the body responsible for all nuclear policymaking and negotiations. But voices are beginning to be heard.

The Rooz portal quotes Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel peace laureate and rights activist, as saying: "There is no doubt that nuclear energy is our inalienable right. But we have other more important, more urgent inalienable rights like the right to welfare, peace, health care and freedom. One right can't be sacrificed to the other".

There is consensus among Iranian political parties on the nation's "inalienable" right to possess and use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. But many, including the Islamic Revolution's Mujahideen Organisation (IRMO), are questioning the current policies which have led the country to a crisis. They are demanding a return to the course taken by Iran's former nuclear negotiation team led by Hassan Rowhani under the reformist regime of former president Mohammad Khatami.

The IRMO, a small but influential reformist party, was recently quoted as saying in a statement: "There is a danger that by continuation of imprudence and adoption of an irrational and sometimes adventurous course of action after expiry of the two-month UN deadline, the crisis may find greater dimensions and endanger national interests and the security of the system and the country. Unfortunately, officials and fosterers of erroneous current policies are preventing the discussion or explanation of the contents of the [UN] Resolution [1737] to the public. Continuation of this course under the pretext of the enemy taking advantage [of domestic criticism] can cause serious challenge to the national expediency and the nation's vital interests".

The IRMO demanded a stop to provoking the international community with threats to make the world insecure if Iran is attacked, to exit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to attack neighbouring countries and to sell enriched uranium to Islamic countries.

An un-named Tehran analyst was quoted as saying: "Concerns about the costs imposed by the relentless pursuit of nuclear technology are rising among the Iranian public who seem to be even more alarmed of prospects of a military attack now than actual sanctions. With what happened in Iraq, they now know the US president is not so much different from our own and is capable of making yet another wrong decision which would be affecting us [Iran] this time".

Reformist parties, concerned about hardliners pushing Iran to a point of no return, are increasingly rallying around the influential Expediency Council Chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Joined by Khatami and former parliament speaker Mehdi Karrubi, Rafsanjani has been actively trying to ease tensions and bring hardliners and the West alike to their senses. Rafsanjani on Feb. 23 told a Friday prayer congregation in Tehran: The appropriate way to solve Iran's nuclear case is that big powers give up their unreasonable preconditions (i.e., suspension of enrichment before talks can start) and negotiation. He added: "Using weapons of mass destruction is not part of our discourse. You say you can't trust Iran not to use its nuclear achievements in its military industries. We are prepared to offer you absolute assurance in this respect".

In an editorial on Feb. 24, Etemad Melli, mouthpiece of Karrubi's reformist Etemad Melli Party, warned: "The nation is facing a threatening course in the international scene... In spite of certain unfounded optimism about the role of China and Russia [in postponing or reducing the intensity of a second Chapter 7 UN resolution against Iran], one cannot really place too much hope in them".

Russia's refusal to complete the Bushehr nuclear plant and to deliver the fuel required for the plant's operation has caused suspicions about Moscow's real intentions. Accusing Russia of playing a dual game and taking advantage of Iran's nuclear situation to acquire concessions from Western powers, Aftab-e-Yazd, a reformist daily associated with an elite clerical party of which Khatami is secretary-general, called on Iran's nuclear negotiators to give up hopes of Russian support. The paper said: "Time has come to stop insisting on some tactics, especially those related to [the] Russians' [role] and while stressing our nuclear strategy, to change certain means [towards its achievement]. Costs can be reduced to a minimum even if it seems too late to have ultimate achievements".

Iran Dissent Over Holocaust Conference: A group of Iranian academics, writers and artists has issued a statement to denounce the Holocaust conference held in Tehran in December 2006, calling it a move that endangered peace and hurt the reputations of Iranian academics. (The Iranian government organised the two-day gathering in December, billed it as a legitimate conference on the historical record and invited notorious Holocaust deniers and white supremacists from around the world. Among those from the US was a former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke. The Foreign Ministry held the event after President Ahmadi-Nejad claimed several times the Holocaust was a myth invented by Zionists to justify the establishment of Israel).

The statement criticising the conference was signed by 23 academics, writers and translators, many of whom live outside Iran. It was sent to The New York Times and circulated on the Internet. It argued that the gathering lacked academic credentials and was held for propaganda purposes. It said: "The extensive material evidence, the confessions made in the Nuremberg trials and other trials that took place after the [second world] war and the testimonies of the survivors established the veracity of the accounts beyond any doubt. The accuracy of the accounts has been acknowledged by many academic, political and religious authorities, including the Catholic Church".