Iran says wants to stay within nuclear rules

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marked the 28th anniversary of Iran's revolution on Sunday pledging to maintain the country's nuclear program but saying he wanted to remain within international rules.

...His comments had prompted talk Iran might say it had begun installing 3,000 centrifuges at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, defying a U.N. sanctions resolution which gave Tehran until February 21 to suspend enrichment or face more measures.

...The proposal would permit Iran to keep its uranium enrichment infrastructure of several hundred centrifuges but it would not be allowed to feed any processed uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into the machines while negotiating with six world powers over a package of incentives to observe U.N. demands.

Article Reference: 

Iran says wants to stay within nuclear rules

The cost of the Iraq war? Nuclear proliferation?

The situation: The Iraq war and situation are worsening. A couple days ago some members of the Medhi army took over a town, for a short time, declaring the formation of an "Republic" in Iraq that's outside the central government. Their leader told them to stand down, and they did, but it certainly reflects the will on the street. Namely undoing the damage done by the British 100 years ago when they caused the three peoples, Kurds, Sunni and Shia to form a single country.

The situation: Iran may or may not be developing nuclear weapons. They have a nuclear program whose side effects include weapons grade material. Their president is being very confrontational with the rest of the world, but to be fair the Bush administration only knows confrontaton as well.

The situation: North Korea has recently exploded a small nuclear bomb, giving them entree to the exclusive club of countries who have nuclear weapons.

In 2002 GW Bush declared an Axis of Evil vowing to stop nuclear proliferation etc. It was Iraq, Iran and North Korea he said was in this Axis. But we see the failure of that declaration, don't we?

The Iraq war has gone terribly astray. This article The week the war unravelled: Bush to 'refocus' Iraq strategy gives a rundown of the recent events that illustrate this. Emergency meetings with the leaders of the Iraq war effort, calls for quick pullout from Iraq, growing calls for a partitioning of Iraq into three semi-autonomous zones, etc.

At the same time we have real nuclear proliferation happening. Nuclear proliferation being the real danger in this world, not this ephemeral danger of Terrorism, and not this false danger that was Iraq. They propped up Iraq as the extreme threat and conned us into launching a war there, while at the same time the real threats grew and grew.

And what of Pakistan? Pakistan is the country from whom both Iran and North Korea acquired their nuclear technology. Without Pakistan exporting nuclear know-how neither of these countries would have gotten as far as they are. Yet, are we threatening Pakistan? Nope. They are (supposedly) U.S. allies.

And what of the Taliban and al Qaeda? They are having a resurgence in Afghanistan.

The key theme I'm seeing in all this is the mismanagement of Iraq. The situation in Iraq seems to be highly distracting, leading U.S. leadership to focus all their attention on Iraq while other countries and situations are not getting the attention they deserve.

I think we can call this "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" eh?

Ethanol is used widely in Brazil

In the State of the Union speech, GW Bush mentioned Ethanol as a resource "we" should develop. There's been a big scramble towards Ethanol since. Ethanol has some interesting characteristics, in that it's a liquid fuel that's very compatible with gasoline. Unlike biodiesel, ethanol can be readily burned in a gasoline engine and, in fact, ethanol is widely used today in the U.S. Just watch for a sticker on the pump saying "This gasoline may contain ethanol".

Brazil leading effort to boost ethanol use discusses ethanol production and use in Brazil. During the 1970's the "military dictators" then ruling the country pushed for ethanol production and mandated its use in vehicles. That has turned into a golden spot in the Brazillian economy, and they use ethanol rather than gasoline in nearly half of domestic passenger fuel demand.

Brazil has an interesting advantage with all those sugar canes, in that it's sugar which produces alcohol.

This means the U.S. can't directly replicate what they're doing, we don't have domestic sugar cane production to any great degree. Further, when you mention Ethanol, the corn farmers in Iowa get dollar signs in their eyes, and the corn producer lobbiests have been controlling debate around ethanol.

But I want to gather up some details from the article, so here goes.

The article focuses on one plant that works "around the clock" that is distilling 92,500 gallons of ethanol daily that is trucked away for immediate sale at the pumps. But it can only do this during the sugar cane season, apparently (March to November). This means to cover the period outside that season they'll need fuel storage facilities.

This at the end seems to be a critical point:

In Sao Tome, the cooperative that owns the ethanol distillery is betting on its best profits since it bought the operation in 1993. Cocamar's production cost is $1.10 per gallon, and wholesalers are buying the fuel for $2.68 - up from $1.44 last year.

About the only thing that could hurt Brazil's ethanol industry now would be an almost unimaginable plunge in international crude oil prices, currently trading above $60 per barrel, said Almir Hawthorne, the distillery's industrial manager.

"Oil could drop to $35 or $40 per barrel, and ethanol producers would still make money."

They're making $1.24 per gallon more profit than last year, due entirely it would seem to the high price for oil. If oil prices did drop again it's clear their threshold for gaining a profit is around $40 per barrel. But I wonder if, at that price, they'll make enough profit to get the excitement that's circling around them.

That's been the sticker for most of the alternative fuels, whether their price per unit is less than the price for fossil fuel.

It seems every time the price for oil goes high, the makers of alternatives are in the limelight. Today that's ethanol (of several kinds), fuel cells, biodiesel, wind turbines, etc. Unfortunately when the price of oil drops again, the alternatives become less attractive.

This is simple economics, with the market (in its short sighted decision making) going to the source with the least cost. Another factoid in the article is that Brazil invested years of subsidies in its ethanol production industry. It's paying off now, and in the future Brazil will remain fueled even when the peak oil phenomena hits and oil is no longer available.

The point to that is in the energy industry it takes a very long time to develop alternatives. Brazil is an example, where it took years before their ethanol industry was self sustaining.

If the U.S. decisioning is based largely on the short sighted approach of "oh, the market will take care of it", well, I think the market moves too quickly for the development of new energy resources.

When they say "the market will take care of it" the scenario is that oil supply becomes tight, and the oil price rises, and then people start scrambling for alternatives that are cheaper. And, we're seeing this effect going on today. But when the real oil peak hits the supply is supposed to drop off very rapidly from the peak. That should cause a rapid rise in prices which would trigger the market to search for alternatives. But if it's going to take years to develop the alternatives, and in the meantime oil supply drops precipitously, "we" won't have those years.

I believe the current high oil prices are not the true oil peak, but instead based on the war(s) brewing in the Persian Gulf. Especially with the war we are threatening against Iran.

The current high oil price is making for an interesting training ground, inspiring the people go through the steps of finding an alternative to burning fossil fuels. Last year people were dumping their SUV's and motorcycles were becoming popular. This year they may be looking for ethanol.

I suppose if the oil prices stay high long enough, like they are now, the makers of the alternatives will have a long enough window to establish themselves. Here's hoping.

The US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

There's been a continuing confrontation between the U.S., the E.U. and Iran over Iran's nuclear power program. Iran has been building nuclear reactors, some of which weren't initially disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Commission, and whose designs could be used to build weapons grade nuclear material. They've promised up and down, those reactors were purely for "peaceful" purposes, but then why would they choose a nuclear reaction that produces weapons grade material if they had a peaceful purpose? Especially as they hid the existance of the reactors?

Coincidentally Iran's plan helps justify the neocon plan to rearrange the political map of the Middle East. So it shouldn't be surprising the Bush administration has been taking a hardline stance towards Iran. The neocon agenda is to create a war against Iran, and taking a hardline stance is the way to gaurantee a war. It worked in Iraq didn't it?

This has been developing for awhile, and as I've posted before it appears to be following the same pattern as was used to cook up justification to attack Iraq. Pressure has been kept hard on Iran, and the Bush Administration rhetoric has been that "all options are on the table" just as they said with Iraq.

In the case of the attack on Iraq, all the justifications given by the administration have been proven to be false. And it's clear that the administration knew the falsity of most of their statements while they were claiming up and down it was all true. In other words, they were lying. And lots of people around the world, including the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, have said the war in Iraq is illegal etc.

On the other hand the allegations against Iran are largely true. Iran itself has admitted to having this nuclear program. And it is a worry to have nuclear weapon capabilities proliferate beyond the set of countries that currently have that capability. So it's a puzzle where to stand. The Bush Administration has a very poor track record, and are obviously holding an agenda dating back to the mid-90's (or further) to destroy Iran's government.

In any case, right now there are some serious rumors being published in Germany saying the U.S. is clearly planning to launch an attack on Iran.

Here's some pointers to discussion:

The US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? (December 30, 2005, Der SPIEGEL ONLINE)

US planning strike against Iran (Dec. 31, 2005 19:33, By JPOST.COM STAFF)

Rumors Of War (January 01, 2006, Past Peak blog)

Attacking Iran (December 31, 2005, John Robb's weblog)

The source is an article in the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. I don't have a link to that article (and no doubt it's in German) but the Der Spiegel article is a good substitute:

In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

... According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

... But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.

Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.

So the Der Spiegel article is not claiming outright there's a war being prepared. But it points to evidence something is going on, even if it's being kept secret enough we aren't knowing what it's about. The Jerusalem Post article is, then, overhyping the truth for some reason. Perhaps the people in Israel are more alarmed by Iran, because the President of Iran has made repeated speeches recently calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, claiming the Holocaust was a hoax, etc.

Iran rejects Russia nuclear plan (Jan 1, 2006, BBC): Russia apparently proposed doing nuclear processing on their terroritory, so that Iran wouldn't be doing the processing. I think the worry is about the expansion of the number of countries who have nuclear weapons capability. In the Der Spiegel article it quoted some General saying that the time to act is "now" because if we wait too long Iran will have their nuclear capability and it will be too late. But Iran rejected the Russian plan.

Iran vows 'crushing response' to attack by U.S., Israel (Haaretz): Tough talk between Iran and Israel just proving they don't like each other. The article provides an interesting overview of the tensions.

US planning to strike Iran's nuke facilities: Report (January 01, 2006 19:36 IST, rediff.com): Describes the proposed attack on Iran as just to destroy the nuclear facilities, rather than an all-out war. I suppose they might be hoping for something like Israel's 80's attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. But in todays Middle East I suspect it would only fan the flames further, seeing the U.S. as an occupying power.

A 2006 U.S. plan to attack Iran detailed (12/31/2005 10:20:00 PM GMT, aljazeera.com): Details the same story as above, but adds to it a statement by Cheney in Jan 2005. He made a vague statement to MSNBC that Israel might be doing the dirty work (bombing Iran's nuclear facilities) leaving the rest of the international community to clean up the consequences later. Hurm.

Iran nuclear resolution adopted (IAEA)

The International Atomic Energy Administration has adopted a resolution on how they will proceed in regards to Iran.

Iran nuclear resolution adopted
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 2:08 PM EST (1908 GMT) CNN.COM

This follows final negotiations on Sunday

Iran confirms 'final' uranium deal
From CNN Correspondent Kasra Naji
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 12:33 PM EST (1733 GMT)

The IAEA web site is
here.
With the resolution (pdf) and a

full report.

Iran Refuses to Stop Using Uranium Enrichment Equipment

Iran Refuses to Stop Using Uranium Enrichment Equipment

By ELAINE SCIOLINO Published: November 25, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

In an on-again-off-again deal, the Iranians are now refusing to change their ways.

The Iranian refusal threatened to scuttle a nuclear agreement that Iran reached 10 days ago with France, Britain and Germany to freeze all of Iran's uranium enrichments activities, European officials said. It also gave new ammunition to the Bush administration, which contends that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program and cannot be trusted.

The impasse coincided with the opening of crucial meetings to review Iran's nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency here, the United Nations nuclear monitoring body that has the authority to refer Iran to the United Nations for possible censure or sanctions.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency chief, said in a speech today that Iran has so far failed to meet its pledge to freeze uranium enrichment in full because of its insistence on operating 20 centrifuges for research.

Or, are they refusing?

Iran vows to honor nuclear pledge
Friday, November 26, 2004 Posted: 7:40 AM EST (1240 GMT) CNN.COM
In this report CNN describes the same situation as a request for an "exemption".

Before the IAEA meeting began on Thursday, ElBaradei said that Iran's 18-year concealment of its enrichment programme had undermined international confidence in the Islamic state.

"A confidence deficit has been created, and confidence needs to be restored. Iran's active cooperation and full transparency is therefore indispensable," he said.

Okay, whew, they backed down on requesting the exemption anyway.

Iran Uranium Dispute Resolved, Diplomats Report

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: November 26, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that under the compromise, Iran would give up its insistence that 20 centrifuges be exempted from a total freeze of all uranium enrichment activities.

But instead of accepting seals from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the equipment, the centrifuges would be monitored for inactivity by IAEA cameras, said the diplomat, who is familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier and who spoke on condition of anonymity.

C.I.A. Says Pakistanis Gave Iran Nuclear Aid

Yup, our dear "allies", the Pakistani's, have been busy proliferating nuclear technology. Tell me again why we invaded Iraq and not Pakistan?

C.I.A. Says Pakistanis Gave Iran Nuclear Aid


By DOUGLAS JEHL Published: November 24, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

A new report from the Central Intelligence Agency says the arms trafficking network led by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan provided Iran's nuclear program with "significant assistance," including the designs for "advanced and efficient" weapons components.

The unclassified version of the report, posted Tuesday on the agency's Web site, www.cia.gov, does not say explicitly whether Mr. Khan's network sold Iran complete plans for building a warhead, as the network is known to have done for Libya and perhaps North Korea. But it suggests that American intelligence agencies now believe that the bomb-making designs provided by the network to Iran in the 1990's were more significant than the United States government has previously disclosed.

In a recent closed-door speech to a private group, George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, described Mr. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, as being "at least as dangerous as Osama bin Laden" because of his role in providing nuclear technology to other countries. A tape recording of the speech was obtained by The New York Times.

Going to cia.gov, we find the report here:

(http://cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/july_dec2003.htm)
Attachment A:
Unclassified Report to Congress
on the Acquisition of Technology
Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munitions,

1 July Through 31 December 2003

More on revelations of Irans nuclear program

Exiles Add to Claims on Iran Nuclear Arms

By ELAINE SCIOLINO, Published: November 18, 2004 (NY Times)

This is the announcement that was promised yesterday. Despite my skepticism yesterday, this group was responsible for the initial unveiling of the story that Iran is enriching Uranium to make bomb-grade material. That gives them some credibility, no matter how "convenient" it is for the neocon war plans.

This is the group

The claims, made in separate news conferences in Paris and Vienna by a group known as the National Council of Resistance, the political front for the People's Mujahedeen, could not be independently verified, and independent nuclear experts were divided about whether they could be true.

These new charges come two days after the agreement was reached, and

The charges also come eight days before the 35-country ruling board of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog, opens meetings in Vienna to decide whether Iran has curbed its nuclear activities or should be referred to the Security Council for censure.

The timing couldn't have been more dramatic, huh?

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonpartisan arms control group in Washington, said, "The timing of these revelations raises suspicions that the group is attempting to derail Iran's deal with the Europeans, particularly since there is no evidence to back up any of these claims."

Yup, couldn't have said it better myself.

This is troubling, but probably very true

The nuclear agency has long suspected that Iran, like Libya, received bomb blueprints from the secretive network set up by Abdul Qadeer Khan, known in Pakistan as the father of the country's nuclear bomb. Among the Mujahedeen's charges on Wednesday was that the Iranian blueprints came from the Khan network.

In September, the agency revealed that as early as 1995, Pakistan was providing Tehran with the designs for advanced centrifuges capable of making bomb-grade nuclear fuel. The Iranians have never acknowledged that the source was Pakistan.

I.A.E.A. inspectors were able to nail down the connection between Iran and Pakistan because of similar centrifuge packaging material they found in Libya and Iran.

It was revealed last year that Pakistan was actively selling their nuclear technology, and that the head of their nuclear program (named above) was in charge of the sales. Now .. consider the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. Among them was this dubious claim of nuclear proliferation in Iraq, which has since been proved false. At the same time we are treating Pakistan as a valued ally. At the same time it is Pakistan that is the worst offender you could possibly imagine in nuclear proliferation, namely they were involved in selling nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and probably North Korea.

Why, then are we treating Pakistan as an ally?

Not that I know ... but let me offer a few clues

1. Pakistan is on the oil pipeline route: This is the oil pipeline that Michael Moore talks of in
   Fahrenheit 9/11. If you haven't been following the news, there's
   been a bunch of U.S. activity north of Afghanistan that is conveniently along the route of the proposed pipeline. The pipeline would go from the Caspian Sea, across the north side of Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, and thence to the sea. It must avoid Iran for political reasons.
2. Pakistan was the staging ground for the U.S. previous "work" in Afghanistan, and needed to be a staging ground for the current work there: In the 1980's the U.S. was waging a proxy war against the USSR to oust them from Afghanistan. The only foothold we had then was Pakistan, and we used Pakistan as an intermediary point to give weapons and training to, er, Osama bin Laden's troops.
3. The U.S. needed in strategic terms to encircle Iran as much as possible: Ever since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1977, the U.S. and Iran have been enemies. The U.S. administration under Reagan supplied weapons and training to Iraq to help Iraq contain Iran, Iraq at the time being led by Saddam Hussein (yes, in the 80's, the U.S. was feeding the guy we now label a devil).

External Media

Group Says Iran Has Secret Nuclear Arms Program (NY Times)

To add a twist to the Iran story, we have an Iranian dissident group claiming

Group Says Iran Has Secret Nuclear Arms Program

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: November 17, 2004 (NY Times)

An Iranian opposition group says it has new evidence that Iran is producing enriched uranium at a covert Defense Ministry facility in Tehran that has not been disclosed to United Nations inspectors.

The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, is planning to announce its finding in Paris on Wednesday. The group says that inspection of the site would demonstrate that Iran is secretly trying to produce nuclear weapons even while promising to freeze a critical part of its declared nuclear program, which it maintains is intended purely for civilian purposes.

A senior official of the group, Muhammad Mohaddessin, said in a telephone interview late on Tuesday that the group had shared the new information "very recently'' with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But he and other officials of the group said it had not discussed the matter with the United States government, and its claims could not be verified.

It's all very convenient, isn't it? A few days ago Iran and the EU come to an agreement to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, only to be met by U.S. grumbles that we'll have to see if they really live up to it. And a few days later this dissident group unveils new evidence.

Reminds me of the Iraqi dissident groups used by Washington DC to promote stories that justified the invasion of Iraq, but those stories turned out to be entirely false. (mobile weapons labs, that never were found, and more)

To be fair - Iran has admitted to an Uranium enrichment program that would, as a side effect, make weapons-grade materials. And they were doing this outside the globally agreed-to parameters that all such activities be done under the inspection rituals established by the UN. Nuclear profileration is of great concern, and the world had previously agreed that the best approach to controlling the spread of this dangerous weapon was for every country to submit to UN inspection. Part of the struggle at the moment is that North Korea, Iran, and a small number of other countries, have refused to submit to these inspections, and have since been caught secretly enriching Uranium to make weapons grade materials.

At the same time we must remember that the Neocon agenda is to reshape the middle east with this folly of a plan to "install democracy" by first toppling Iraq's government, and then Iran's. The "it's convenient" I alluded to above is how convenient it is for the Neocon agenda that someone stepped forward to challenge the EU/Iran agreement just when it appeared the justification to invade Iran might have been crumbling.

Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment

Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment
Sunday, November 14, 2004 Posted: 7:02 PM EST (0002 GMT) (CNN.COM)

The article is saying that Iran has reached an agreement with the EU proposals. This is the negotiations I've been tracking in this category. This is good news, as it removes one of the justifications the neocon's were likely to employ before invading Iran.

Of course, to make sure it's not so simple, the neocon's have this to say:

The U.S. State Department had no immediate reaction to Sunday's report, but spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters last week, "The question of where they stand -- where Iran stands -- when we get to the board meeting is the important one."

"Will Iran have complied at that point with the requirements of the IAEA board?," Boucher asked. "Will the IAEA be in a position to verify that and to say that they are engaging in the verification of that kind of promise and activity?"

He added, "Ultimately, it's what Iran does that matters, not just what they have agreed to."

Iran rejects EU proposal

Iran rejects EU move to halt nuclear plans
(Filed: 24/10/2004)
see story here

Summary: The proposal previously noted has been rejected by Iran as being "unbalanced". It sounds, though, as if the rejection doesn't halt negotiations, they're just looking for more balanced terms.

UPDATE: [October 26]


A Hint of a Nuclear Compromise by Iran By THE NEW YORK TIMES

"The European proposal for an unlimited suspension of uranium enrichment can be implemented, provided it does not contradict the Islamic Republic's criteria," the ISNA news agency quoted the nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, as saying on Monday.

"We have said that we accept the suspension as long as it is voluntary,'' Mr. Rowhani said. "No country has the right to deprive us of our right."