WAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Mission possible
31-Jul-2008
The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation's sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood.
Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.
Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating "accident" involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency's backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.
The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. Facing brutal repression from the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate. The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.
However, relations between the MEK and the Islamic regime in Tehran soured, and after the MEK staged a bloody coup attempt in 1981, all ties were severed and the two sides engaged in a violent civil war. Revolutionary Guard members who were active at that time have acknowledged how difficult it was to fight the MEK. In the end, massive acts of arbitrary arrest, torture and executions were required to break the back of mainstream MEK activity in Iran, although even the Revolutionary Guard today admits the MEK remains active and is virtually impossible to completely eradicate.
It is this stubborn ability to survive and operate inside Iran, at a time when no other intelligence service can establish and maintain a meaningful agent network there, which makes the MEK such an asset to nations such as the United States and Israel. The MEK is able to provide some useful intelligence; however, its overall value as an intelligence resource is negatively impacted by the fact that it is the sole source of human intelligence in Iran. As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda. In this way, there is little to differentiate the MEK from another Middle Eastern expatriate opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, which infamously supplied inaccurate intelligence to the United States and other governments and helped influence the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Today, the MEK sees itself in a similar role, providing sole-sourced intelligence to the United States and Israel in an effort to facilitate American military operations against Iran and, eventually, to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization's activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein's Mukhabarat, or intelligence service. The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given "protected status" under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses "refugee camps" inside Iraq as its bases.
The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency's acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran's ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.
Now, I have a simple solution to the issue of the laptop computer: Give it the UNSCOM treatment. Assemble a team of CIA, FBI and Defense Department forensic computer analysts and probe the computer, byte by byte. Construct a chronological record of how and when the data on the computer were assembled. Check the "logic" of the data, making sure everything fits together in a manner consistent with the computer's stated function and use. Tell us when the computer was turned on and logged into and how it was used. Then, with this complex usage template constructed, overlay the various themes which have been derived from the computer's contents, pertaining to projects, studies and other activities of interest. One should be able to rapidly ascertain whether or not the computer is truly a key piece of intelligence pertaining to Iran's nuclear programs.
The fact that this computer is acknowledged as coming from the MEK and the fact that a proper forensic investigation would probably demonstrate the fabricated nature of the data contained are why the U.S. government will never agree to such an investigation being done. A prosecutor, when making a case of criminal action, must lay out evidence in a simple, direct manner, allowing not only the judge and jury to see it but also the accused. If the evidence is as strong as the prosecutor maintains, it is usually bad news for the defendant. However, if the defendant is able to demonstrate inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data being presented, then the prosecution is the one in trouble. And if the defense is able to demonstrate that the entire case is built upon fabricated evidence, the case is generally thrown out. This, in short, is what should be done with the IAEA's ongoing probe into allegations that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. The evidence used by the IAEA is unable to withstand even the most rudimentary cross-examination. It is speculative at best, and most probably fabricated. Iran has done the right thing in refusing to legitimize this illegitimate source of information.
A key question that must be asked is why, then, does the IAEA continue to permit Olli Heinonen, the agency's Finnish deputy director for safeguards and the IAEA official responsible for the ongoing technical inspections in Iran, to wage his one-man campaign on behalf of the United States, Britain and (indirectly) Israel regarding allegations derived from sources of such questionable veracity (the MEK-supplied laptop computer)? Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner that results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort that have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran's alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them. And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen's repeated transgressions are treated as a giant "non-event," the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn't really there.
Heinonen has become the pro-war yin to the anti-confrontation yang of his boss, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Every time ElBaradei releases the results of the IAEA probe of Iran, pointing out that the IAEA can find no evidence of any past or present nuclear weapons program, and that there is a full understanding of Iran's controversial centrifuge-based enrichment program, Heinonen throws a monkey wrench into the works. Well-publicized briefings are given to IAEA-based diplomats. Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur. Heinonen's Finnish nationality serves as a flimsy cover for neutrality that long ago disappeared. He is no longer serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active pursuit of an American- and Israeli-inspired disinformation campaign designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.
The fact that the IAEA is being used as a front to pursue this blatantly anti-Iranian propaganda is a disservice to an organization with a mission of vital world importance. The interjection of not only the unverified (and unverifiable) MEK laptop computer data, side by side with a newly placed emphasis on a document relating to the forming of uranium metal into hemispheres of the kind useful in a nuclear weapon, is an amateurish manipulation of data to achieve a preordained outcome. Calling the Iranian possession of the aforementioned document "alarming," Heinonen (and the media) skipped past the history of the document, which, of course, has been well explained by Iran previously as something the Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan inserted on his own volition to a delivery of documentation pertaining to centrifuges. Far from being a "top-secret" document protected by Iran's security services, it was discarded in a file of old material that Iran provided to the IAEA inspectors. When the IAEA found the document, Iran allowed it to be fully examined by the inspectors, and answered every question posed by the IAEA about how the document came to be in Iran. For Heinonen to call the document "alarming," at this late stage in the game, is not only irresponsible but factually inaccurate, given the definition of the word. The Iranian document in question is neither a cause for alarm, seeing as it is not a source for any "sudden fear brought on by the sense of danger," nor does it provide any "warning of existing or approaching danger," unless one is speaking of the danger of military action on the part of the United States derived from Heinonen's unfortunate actions and choice of words.
Olli Heinonen might as well become a salaried member of the Bush administration, since he is operating in lock step with the U.S. government's objective of painting Iran as a threat worthy of military action. Shortly after Heinonen's alarmist briefing in March 2008, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, emerged to announce, "As today's briefing showed us, there are strong reasons to suspect that Iran was working covertly and deceitfully, at least until recently, to build a bomb." Heinonen's briefing provided nothing of the sort, being derived from an irrelevant document and a laptop computer of questionable provenance. But that did not matter to Schulte, who noted that "Iran has refused to explain or even acknowledge past work on weaponization." Schulte did not bother to note that it would be difficult for Iran to explain or acknowledge that which it has not done. "This is particularly troubling," Schulte went on, "when combined with Iran's determined effort to master the technology to enrich uranium." Why is this so troubling? Because, as Schulte noted, "Uranium enrichment is not necessary for Iran's civil program but it is necessary to produce the fissile material that could be weaponized into a bomb."
This, of course, is the crux of the issue: Iran's ongoing enrichment program. Not because it is illegal; Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not again because Iran's centrifuge program is operating in an undeclared, unmonitored fashion; the IAEA had stated it has a full understanding of the scope and work of the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program and that all associated nuclear material is accounted for and safeguarded. The problem has never been, and will never be, Iran's enrichment program. The problem is American policy objectives of regime change in Iran, pushed by a combination of American desires for global hegemony and an activist Israeli agenda which seeks regional security, in perpetuity, through military and economic supremacy. The specter of nuclear enrichment is simply a vehicle for facilitating the larger policy objectives. Olli Heinonen, and those who support and sustain his work, must be aware of the larger geopolitical context of his actions, which makes them all the more puzzling and contemptible.
A major culprit in this entire sordid affair is the mainstream media. Displaying an almost uncanny inability to connect the dots, the editors who run America's largest newspapers, and the producers who put together America's biggest television news programs, have collectively facilitated the most simplistic, inane and factually unfounded story lines coming out of the Bush White House. The most recent fairy tale was one of "diplomacy," on the part of one William Burns, the No. 3 diplomat in the State Department.
I have studied the minutes of meetings involving John McCloy, an American official who served numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, in the decades following the end of the Second World War. His diplomacy with the Soviets, conducted with senior Soviet negotiator Valerein Zorin and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev himself, was real, genuine, direct and designed to resolve differences. The transcripts of the diplomacy conducted between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to bring an end to the Vietnam conflict is likewise a study in the give and take required to achieve the status of real diplomacy.
Sending a relatively obscure official like Burns to "observe" a meeting between the European Union and Iran, with instructions not to interact, not to initiate, not to discuss, cannot under any circumstances be construed as diplomacy. Any student of diplomatic history could tell you this. And yet the esteemed editors and news producers used the term diplomacy, without challenge or clarification, to describe Burns' mission to Geneva on July 19. The decision to send him there was hailed as a "significant concession" on the part of the Bush administration, a step away from war and an indication of a new desire within the White House to resolve the Iranian impasse through diplomacy. How this was going to happen with a diplomat hobbled and muzzled to the degree Burns was apparently skipped the attention of these writers and their bosses. Diplomacy, America was told, was the new policy option of choice for the Bush administration.
Of course, the Geneva talks produced nothing. The United States had made sure Europe, through its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had no maneuvering room when it came to the core issue of uranium enrichment: Iran must suspend all enrichment before any movement could be made on any other issue. Furthermore, the American-backed program of investigation concerning the MEK-supplied laptop computer further poisoned the diplomatic waters. Iran, predictably, refused to suspend its enrichment program, and rejected the Heinonen-led investigation into nuclear weaponization, refusing to cooperate further with the IAEA on that matter, noting that it fell outside the scope of the IAEA's mandate in Iran.
Condoleezza Rice was quick to respond. After a debriefing from Burns, who flew to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where Rice was holding closed-door meetings with the foreign ministers of six Arab nations on the issue of Iran, Rice told the media that Iran "was not serious" about resolving the standoff. Having played the diplomacy card, Rice moved on with the real agenda: If Iran did not fully cooperate with the international community (i.e., suspend its enrichment program), then it would face a new round of economic sanctions and undisclosed punitive measures, both unilaterally on the part of the United States and Europe, as well as in the form of even broader sanctions from the United Nations Security Council (although it is doubtful that Russia and China would go along with such a plan).
The issue of unilateral U.S. sanctions is most worrisome. Both the House of Representatives, through HR 362, and the Senate, through SR 580, are preparing legislation that would call for an air, ground and sea blockade of Iran. Back in October 1962, President John F. Kennedy, when considering the imposition of a naval blockade against Cuba in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in that nation, opined that "a blockade is a major military operation, too. It's an act of war." Which, of course, it is. The false diplomacy waged by the White House in Geneva simply pre-empted any congressional call for a diplomatic outreach. Now the president can move on with the mission of facilitating a larger war with Iran by legitimizing yet another act of aggression.
One day, in the not-so-distant future, Americans will awake to the reality that American military forces are engaged in a shooting war with Iran. Many will scratch their heads and wonder, "How did that happen?" The answer is simple: We all let it happen. We are at war with Iran right now. We just don't have the moral courage to admit it.
Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector and Marine intelligence officer who has written extensively about Iran. This article was first published in truthdig.com.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
no more gimicks Uncle Fred!
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 01:54 PM PDTUncle Fred says: "By the way as they have been doing all along the Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies can call me whatever their heart desires it only makes me stronger and more resolute."
I am glad that you are getting stronger. Hopefully that means next time you are loosing a debate you will be strong enough to say you lost, instead of resorting to the "Haji" gimick.
Dear Fred:
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 01:24 PM PDTDear Fred: Thank you for considering my request and not ignoring me. As a matter of courtesy, I would have granted the good professor his wish and requested him not to call you a zionist in kind.
I also wish our good professor reconsider calling others zionists or other appellations wherein it could be minsconstrued as offensive.
Dear Fred: I still would like your feedback on my posts regarding Iran's treasonous act of mismanaging (read looting) the only source of revenue and the other equally treasonous act of giving the control of most of Caspian Sea (which comprises of land, Sea, oil and gas) to Russia in exchange for nuclear technology.
I think stealing and pocketing the national wealth constitutes treason. Don't you think so??
These are very disturbing acts of treasons that should be shouted from the roof tops...
Child’s play
by Fred on Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:32 PM PDTI have no problem with not calling any particular person anything that they prefer not to be called provided that it is not done under false pretenses. I was told Haji is a racist, insulting remark and for that reason it should not be used. If that is the reason sorry it won’t wash with me for I’ve lived in the culture and know better. But if the reasons are as I’ve stated in the previous post I have no problem with that. By the way as they have been doing all along the Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies can call me whatever their heart desires it only makes me stronger and more resolute. After weathering the Islamist republic the rest is child’s play.
Dear Not Anonymous
by Hamvatan (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:02 PM PDTAlthough you are 99% right. The "good professor" engages in the same type of behavior. He freely calls people "zionists", "traitors" ..........
The "good professor" is not helping the situation.
I disagree with Mammd also (to Hamvatan/Mammad)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:01 PM PDTHamvatan, I also disagree with Mammad calling Fred a Zionist. During my college years and after, I have had the privilege of knowing several Zionist, including my Israeli university adviser a very good person, although I did not agree with his political views. I believe Mammad should not insult Zionists by calling Fred a Zionist.
Fred, Mammad is a very insecure Muslim
by MargbarIRI (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:57 AM PDTAnd he is very easily offended. You are not allowed to call him a professor but he always says that he is a professor and takes pride in it. You are also not allowed to call him an Islamist, even he always says that he is proud of it. Now he does not like Haji when he freely refers to you as Zionist which is a clear derogatory term against you since Islamists/Leftist hate Zionists who also happen to be mainly Jews.
Haji is a term of respect for all except for an Islamist Lefty professor. I even remember our Jewish neighbors in Iran would refer to any of their family members who visited Israel or any members who were religious as Haji. This was not in disrespect at all. In fact it was a term used in respect and endearment.
Dear Fred:
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:47 AM PDTCalling people, Zionist, anti-semite, islamofascists, Haji, Zionazi, shahollhi, MEK, Jihadi, etc. is an act of intellectual surrender.
The good professor has asked you not to call him Haji for whatever reason, please take heed. It will demonstrate your high mindedness and it will add to your sense of fairness.
By doing this you will further add credibility to your counterarguments since you're not attacking the messenger but the message. The person who employs an ad hominem attack (that includes calling people zionists or Islamofascists) is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to undermine the debate by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.
Thank you Fred. I would also like your feed back on my posts.
Uncle Fred!
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:30 AM PDTUncle Fred, I have some news about uncle Sam for you, and I like to know your opinion about it.
Uncle Fred, the world is changing ... China, India, and even Russia are coming up , ....., it is no longer true that uncle Sam can do whatever he wants, it is no longer true that the uncle can extort anytime it wishes, ...., in fact the uncle is being extorted big time by the Pakistanis right NOW! And the uncle was extorted by India for voting against Iran in nuclear issue!
BTW, Uncle Fred answer my questions and you can call me Haji Anonym as many times as you want!
Impact of sanctions of investment??
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:26 AM PDTHere's more on Sanctions:
In trying to blame the U.S. for Iran's utter mismanagement of its economy.
As it turns out, up until last year, Western Sanctions have little to do with keeping out investments from Iran but you won't ever hear that from the IRI's apologists or the "benevolent" reformers. The IR is a victim of "arrogant powers" in perpetuity.Iran's own politics - not Western sanctions - keep out investments
//www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557...
Iran's economic problems are intrinsic to its military clientalism power structure. A flourishing viable economy will not emerge anytime soon without complete overhaul of the system.
//iranian.com/Alamdari/2006/March/Iran/in...
The United States is on a concerted campaign to discourage foreign energy companies from doing business in Iran. But analysts say Iran's investment woes are its own fault - it could dodge international pressure and attract more foreign money by simply offering better deals.
"They are doing the embargoing for us," said Mikkal Herberg, a former oil executive now with the National Bureau for Asian Research, a think tank partially funded by the US government.
"The terms they offer (to foreign energy companies) for these deals are very poor, with low rates of return against the geopolitical risk," he said.
Even Chinese firms, eager to invest in troubled countries like Sudan, have been slow to follow through on energy deals in Iran...read the rest here:
//www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557...
sorry unintentional posting
by Rosie T. on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:36 AM PDTdelete
Provisional Haji professor
by Fred on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:01 AM PDTHaji is not a sign of disrespect or anything negative; I’ve grown up in a culture that refers to people who wear their Islam on their cuff as Haji and they love it. It is just used in deference to their preference and source of pride. But now you claim it is a sign of disrespect and also that you can read my mind and you say: “you use Haji in a racist and demeaning way. You do not use it as a sign of respect for a Muslim, for whom you have none.” I challenge you to cite a single instance that I’ve disrespected anyone’s faith including Moslems. Of course you are savvy enough to differentiate between the political ideology of Islamism and the faith Islam, or like Khomeini and his gang you see them as one and the same? The instant you provide the credible evidence that Haji is a derogatory term that would be the time I stop using it even in its traditional context. Or alternatively, even though you make certain that it is known your Faith in Islam is a source of pride for you, if you are particularly averse to the title that Moslems worldwide strive all their life to achieve please say so without editorializing it and I will stop using it.
Lack of investment is not
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:03 AM PDTLack of investment is not treason.
I have to disagree with you; I would also call it sheer incompetence and utter stupidity. I think the mullahs are looting the oil revenues at a higher rate and not re-investing the revenues to maintain their only source of profit.
This is quite frightening for a nation who's main source of revenue is oil. Iran has been investing in everywhere else in the world except Iran to the determinant of the Iranians future.
Two years ago, Roger Stern an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University published that the Islamic Republic could soon run out of oil to export. "Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. In less than five years, exports could be halved, and they could disappear by 2015.
Stern faults the inadequate investment (hostility to foreign investment to develop new oil resources) and mismanagement (poor state planning) and sheer negligence by the mullahs as the main causes of declining oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. Stern also informs us that the poor managment and inadequate care and maintenance of the refinaries contribute significantly to the loss of revenue and waste of precious oil, "If we look at that shortfall, and failure to rectify leaks in their refineries, that adds up to a loss of about $10 billion to $11 billion a year." "That is a picture of an industry in collapse."
First, the regime has not been investing enough to keep their basic infrastructure going. Their income from oil is just enough to cover maintenance, but not future investments. So, by trying to bring up the old maritime platforms as producers, they are actively removing money from the maintenance budget.
Second, the entire petroleum infrastructure is going to pot. The very pinnacle and most complex piece of the infrastructure is the refinery: if you do nothing else, you keep the refineries going as the most value added is there. Any modern, well run refinery system does not *lose* oil. The entire supply and refining system in Iran is losing 3-4% of its oil above and beyond the depletion rate of its field capacity. The added subsidies to gasoline and natural gas are killing the refineries, which cannot sustain themselves on that economic footing without other monetary inputs. The natural gas problem is even worse, as it is the #1 easiest and cheapest method of 'rejuvenating' old oil fields. Plus Iran is hopping to let liquid natural gas futures and contracts. To do this there will be *no* cheap oil sustainment and more expensive methods will need to be employed. In point of fact they may not be able to let any contracts on natural gas based on domestic consumption alone.
Third, the entire petro-infrastructure has seen no new additions on it for at least 4 years and most likely 8 years. Japan has shut off ALL new investments in this area and the amounts that Iran is trying to bring online no where meet current consumption increases. Gross supply,then, at best will remain flat with diminishing older fields losing production, no new projects to be online before 2010 and actual maintenance losing oil in the sytem. And as the older maritime equipment needs an overhaul, bringing it up again only means a faster date to get that started. From that the expectation is that gross supply will *not* remain steady and will actually begin to decline.
Fourth, the first indicator or warning sign is that Iran can't meet contractual obligations. They have not met their OPEC export quota for 18 months.
When production crosses consumption downwards, Iran becomes a net oil IMPORTER. Their refinery system is already so bad off that they are talking about buying gasoline to import and selling it at cost... considering the subsidized gas is 34 cents/gallon and the world market is about 5 times that, the economic shock of even a slow transition will be huge as money starts to flow out of Iran to buy gasoline.
The refineries are the key: they are the most integral part of adding value to the crude oil and get a high return on investment. When those start to fail, that indicates a system-wide problem in lack of skills and maintenance. No modern Nation loses *any* oil in the pipeline system or refining system, unless it is venting of natural gas that cannot be used or captured. It isn't just the nice economic trouble numbers out at 2012-19 that are worrying, it is the fact that before that happens the entire system reaches a tipping point and Iran changes from oil export on contract to being forced out of OPEC and onto the spot market because it cannot meet export quotas and is seen as an unreliable Nation for meeting contractual obligations. Things get very ugly then. Especially if the refineries have to be shut down and gasoline imported. And there is no cheap rejuvenation of older oil fields with natural gas. And maintenance of the basic pipeline and pumping system declines steadily.
The refineries are near that point already. The oil fields are already experiencing the fact that more expensive rejuvenation needs to be used because natural gas cannot be taken from the domestic use side. And the infrastructure is already losing 3-4% of all oil pumped out of the ground.
These are not little post-it note warnings: these are huge billboards in neon brightly flashing *Danger Ahead*.
What happens when this house of cards falls in on itself is of speculation. Even if they stopped subsidies *today* and took the resultant economic downturn, new projects will not come online until 2010 if the system worked well. It does not work well. This is the strangest form of economic suicide that has ever been described: willful neglect of a cash cow that drives the National economy to undermine one's own Nation.
When the refineries die or are closed, the rest of Iran is not far behind.
//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
//www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home06/jan06/mid...
//www.pnas.org/content/104/1/377.abstract?max...
That is debatable.
In ten years since 1998, the IRI work has resulted in increasing Iran's known oil reserves from 92 billion to 138 billion, a 50% increase. That needed internal investment that the IRI provided. But, developing this oil needs foreign investment and technology.
Please provide a link/source, and If you don't mind please explain "IRI's work"?? Whose work?? What company did this work?? How do you "increase oil" reserves? Or do you mean discovered oil reserves??
International energy outlook:
//www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html
//www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html
Energy forecast and analysis for Iran:
//tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_da...
//tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_da...
//usasearch.gov/search?affiliate=eia.doe.gov&...
IRan has the "typical twin-peaked [oil production The first peak was Campbell notes that Iran, a co-founder of OPEC in 1961, has the "typical twin-peaked [oil production] profile of an OPEC country":-
The first peak was passed in 1974 at 6.1 million barrels per day, falling to a low of 1.2 million barrels per day in 1980, before recovering to 3.4 million barrels per day in 2002. Some reports suggest that depletion of present reserves is running as high as 7%, which may reflect operational shortcomings and lack of investment ... [P]roduction could in resource terms rise to a second peak in 2009 at almost 5 million barrels per day before commencing its terminal decline at 2.6% a year, but operational and investment constraints may prevent such a level being reached in practice, with 3-4 million barrels per day peak being perhaps more likely.
//www.energybulletin.net/node/4634
To Moderators: I apologize for the length of this post. If you can truncate it in a way that won't lose the essential info, please do so.
Mammad the Showbadebaz
by Hamvatan (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 09:26 AM PDTIts funny how you request to not be called a "Haji" but you can call people "Zionist" (which is code word for "jew" by Islamists) , "traitors", "embicil". Are you a comic as well?
You can't ask for respect when you yourself are engaged in name calling. You as a Professor should know that. You are so passionate about you leftist islamic views that you forget how you are treating people sometimes.
Fred
by Mammad on Mon Aug 04, 2008 08:29 AM PDTI'll respond to your last two comments if you stop using Haji. In my opinion, and as I explained to you, you use Haji in a racist and demeaning way. You do not use it as a sign of respect for a Muslim, for whom you have none. Therefore, I refuse to debate anyone who does not have the minimum level of respect. Write as much lie about me as you want. I simply ignore it, unless you demonstrate a minimum level of civility.
Yeah, you are the only one who knows about the famous Reagan quote!!
Mammad
Uncle Fred!
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 08:24 AM PDTUncle Fred, although many of economical and social ills in Iran are not because of uncle Sam, I agree with you that he has managed to make things much more difficult for Iran and amplify those ills, some of which you refer to.
But uncle Fred I have some bad news for you, ....., things are changing ... China, India, and even Russia are coming up , ....., it is no longer true that the uncle can do whatever he wants, it is no longer true that the uncle can extort anytime it wishes, ...., in fact the uncle is being extorted big time by the Pakistanis right NOW! And the uncle was extorted by India for voting against Iran in nuclear issue!
I retract as pointless for time being...
by Rosie T. on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:37 AM PDTRosie
Haji professor
by Fred on Mon Aug 04, 2008 04:03 AM PDTI’m glad you got my Ronald Reagan quotation but am not so glad for your continuation of doing the same. In light of availability of video refuting your denial of the self bestowment of “world renowned” title lets consider that subject moot. So it seems your insistence that there were only “six minor breaches” by the Islamist republic, something that has been debunked over and over again by not petroleum rather nuclear experts and scientists.
So goes your latest pronouncements. That is “The US has played a big role in preventing Iran getting the investment. “ and “the US wants to control the Middle East and, therefore, does not want any nation that has even the potential of standing up to its excesses.” So what you are saying is the US should allow investment in the Islamist republic while knowing it is after the means to have “the potential of standing up to its excesses.” Wouldn’t US tax payers have some in your language “minor” problem with such nut job of a government? And if one of your brighter students says the means is a code word for nuke give than pupil an A +. There is enough contradictory material in your writings that would make a sophist blush with envy. You see this insistence on not letting go of an ideology which has been put to practice with devastating consequences as has your religious nationalist or Islamist nationalist or half dozen likewise oxymoron titles you guys use creates a vortex of vicious cycle.
Iran is surrounded by historical enemies and is also blessed with natural geopolitical attributes making it a perfect ally for Israel and the US. There is no need to be hostile to that which is good for Iran and be more than friendly to that which is and has been a historical poison. Choosing to swim against the natural history mandated current has gotten Iran with your Shariati/Ale-Ahmad envisioned Islamist republic at the helm to where we are. An Oil producing nation that imports almost half of its fuel, has a booming sex trade inside and exports its teenage sex-slaves to the relatively speaking newly created little Persian Gulf sheikdoms and Pakistan, and the rest of the sad story that every one of honesty knows about only too well. It is time for Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies to slap themselves to consciousness and see what their ideology has done, let go of it and do not resist the historical tide for getting rid of it.
More Questions?
by Mammad on Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:15 AM PDTI did not read your first set of questions.
(1) First of all, unlike what the IRI does, we must separate two things: Nuclear energy does not necessarily mean uranium enrichment. 42 countries have nuclear reactors, but only 10 or 11 countries enrich uranium.
Most of what I have written has been about generating electricity by nuclear reactors. Based on my research - and I have been in the energy field for 30 years - nuclear energy is totally economical for Iran. I explained this also in one of my old comments on this page.
I have not written much on uranium enrichment. In my opinion, uranium enrichment might NOT be economical for Iran, unless you give it a security dimension. Uranium, like oil and gold, is a strategic product, not a common commodity. Therefore, it has a security value as well.
I have never ever defended development of nuclear weapons by Iran. I am a pacifist and opposed to any war. I have been a member of Union of Concerned Scientists for 22 years, an organization dedicated to alerting the public about the danger of WMD.
What I have defended is Iran's rights within the rights and obligations of the NPT. Iran has not violated the NPT, and has been only in six minor breaches of its Safeguards Agreement, none which was to "further a military purpose," the language for making nuclear weapons. This is based on the IAEA reports.
There is no evidence, according to the IAEA, that Iran has a nuclear weapon program. Surely, uranium enrichment technology is a dual use technology, but so also are a lot of other things. The same chemical products that are used as fertilizers can also be used for producing chemical weapons.
What the international community should do with Iran's uranium enrichment capability is, in my opinion, to keep it latent and under control. The way to do that is NOT by driving it underground by denying Iran's fundamental rights under the NPT, but by keeping it out in the open, and controlling it by tight inspection under Additional Protocol, which allows the IAEA to make unannounced visits to anywhere in Iran.
In my opinion, development of alternative sources of energy, including nuclear energy, is in Iran's national interests, and transcends the type of government that Iran has. The Shah started this, and the IRI continued it.
Regarding auctioning off of "land" and oil: If any Iranian, including the leaders of the IRI, have commited, or are commiting, such acts, then they are traitors to Iran and Iranians.
Lack of investment is not treason. The investment that Iran needs, which is about $60 billion, must come from foreign sources, because it is not just the money, but the technology that comes with it. In ten years since 1998, the IRI work has resulted in increasing Iran's known oil reserves from 92 billion to 138 billion, a 50% increase. That needed internal investment that the IRI provided. But, developing this oil needs foreign investment and technology.
The US has played a big role in preventing Iran getting the investment. On one hand, it has repeatedly said that Iran does not need nuclear energy because it has vast reserves of oil and gas, but at the same time has prevented many oil firms from investing in Iran.
Same thing with refinaries. For every barrel of oil to be refined by a refinary one needs to invest about $12000. So, for a refinary that refines 150,000 barrels of oil/day (the size of Tehran's refinary), one needs investment of about $1.8-2 billion. Iran needs at least 6-7 of such refinaries to become self-sufficient, meaning that it would need $12-15 billion in investment. But, again, it is not just the money, but new technology.
I read Roger Stern's article when it was published. He argues about nuclear energy the same way as I did in three articles in 2003, 2004, and 2005, namely, if the present trends continue, and no investment is made in Iran's oil and gas industry, it will become a net importer of oil by 2015. When I said EXACTLY the same thing in 2003, a lot of people criticized me. But, now, an American expert has said the same.
I know nothing about Iran's oil peak problem. I do not believe in the oil peak, as it is talked about today. Therefore, I do not know why the IRI leaders have hidden it, if they have.
Nuclear technology is one of several options that Iran can choose to diversify its energy resources. Solar is one, if it is made more economical. Wind is another. Hydroelectric is the third. I believe that a combination of all of them is good. I suggested this in the 2004 article.
Mammad
Not anonymous
by more questions? (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 09:57 PM PDTDear professor: Was there a reason you did not respond to my first set of questions on this same thread??? In case you missed them; here they are again??
Why do you think it is in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons/technology given the nature of the Islamic Republic??
Why do you not see the Islamic Republic's outright stealing and auctioning off the national resources including land and oil to the highest bidder as a treasonous act?
Why do you not see the Islamic Republic's lack of investment and upgrades in the oil infrastructure (including refinaries) of as a treasonous act?? I'm referring to the leaks in the current system where millions of dollars is wasted.
I'm referring to Roger Stern's article released online at 26 DEC 2006 on, "The Iranian petroleum crisis." The article was released to Open Access before publication.
//www.pnas.org/content/104/1/377.abstract?max...
You might want to read this article too:
Iran's oil problem
Why not present Iran's peakoil problem as an argument to justify Iranian's nuclear problem. Why does the Islamic Republic has kept this a secret?
Would it not be more enlightning to Iranians and the world to understand what is at stake if Iran did not develop nuclear power plants?? Is the nuclear technology the only way or there are other alternatives renewable energies sources and technology that Iran should invest in??
MargBarIRI
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 08:43 PM PDTAt least I serve a useful purpose by bringing smile to your face by my ridiculous statements. What is the purpose in your comments? Do not tell me that it is to "expose" me. I have already been made so by others. Find another purpose.
Mammad
AnonymousHaha
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 08:40 PM PDTAs Ronald Reagan said famously, "there you go again." You are back with statements that do not make much sense to me, and have peppered them with all sorts of inappropriate words. You have also changed what I said in order to prove that I am a very disappointing man.
So, let me say at the outset that I am indeed very disappointing. The best evidence for it is that I have spent my entire Sunday responding respectfully to all sorts of unfair attacks, simply because I express my opinion that is not liked by people like you. Yes, that is indeed a best manifestation of how disappointing I am.
So, there, you heard it from me that I am very disappointing. With that out of the way, let's talk about your more substantive comments.
(1) I never said that I am opposed to freedom of religion. What I said was I am opposed to having foreign missionary groups - groups that act as agents of some multinational corporations - to go to another country and in the name of preaching try to exploit people. There is a vast difference between the two. You may not see it that way, but I do. Can I, or I am not allowed in your secular republic?
The problem is that you and other people never ever bother to actually do the research to see whether what I say can be substantiated or not. You just think that if you just see a few things here and there on slow afternoons and evenings, then you are fully aware of what is going on. I have always said: Never take any statement from anybody at face value. Check it for yourself.
(2) I never said that I am against freedom of press. You are linking two unrelated subjects. Without freedom of the press there cannot be democracy.
(3) What does wanting a secular republic have anything to do with whether MEK is a traitor organization or not?
But, let's just say, according to your argument, that it has everything to do with it. Then, why is calling MEK a traitor not allowed, but supporting it is allowed in your secular republic in exile?
Yes, if we have a true democratic republic and the MEK rennounces all sorts of violence and acts of treason that it has committed, and in particular its history after it fled to Iraq, etc., then, of course they can and should participate in the democratic process. In my opinion, there should not be reckoning just for those IRI leaders that have commited crimes against people; there should also be for the MEK leaders.
You disagree with it? Fine. Why do you have to attack me so strongly just to say that you disagree? In your secular republic that would be the norm?
(4) You took my statement out of context. What I said was:
"The IRI leaders are fully aware that every nuclear material has a genetic signature. Therefore, they are fully aware that if they transfer some nuclear materials to any group like Hezbollah and that group uses the materials against Israel [or any other nation], then through the genetic signature the oerigin of the material will easily be traced back to Iran and will, therefore, bring a massive retaliation which, by the way, will be fully justified."
If fact, I believe that if such a scenario does occur, even pre-emptive attack will be justified.
So, the point of that statement was: Such a scenario is so implausible, and yet it is constantly used against a nuclear program which, at least under the present conditions, has no weapon component to it.
You disagree with this crappy statement? Fine. It is perfectly ok with me. Why do you have to use words like crappy to declare your opposition? Is that the norm in your secular republic?
(5) No, the US and Israel are not naive. But, the US wants to control the Middle East and, therefore, does not want any nation that has even the potential of standing up to its excesses. You do not see it that way. Fine again. In my crappy world I see it. Can I, or in your secular repub,ic I cannot?
(6) No, I do not believe that just because Israel has it, Iran must have it. I believe that no one in the Middle East should have it.
I may be saying a lot of craps, as you say. Therefore, I suggest that, as I suggested to Fred, that you write up your worthwhile thoughts as an article and post it here or elsewhere. Then, people like me will either be fully exposed, or can respond. Then, the readers can decide who is crappy and who is not.
Until then, crappy people like me will continue making their crappy statements unchecked. Do you not want to put an end to it? I always encourage people to take advantage of the internet and express themselves. If people like me who say a lot of craps do this, why don't you - the rational person with solid arguments - do it? Criticism is not enough. Suggest ways and means. I suggested my craps, it is your turn.
As Michael Douglas said in the movie, the American President, your 15 minutes is up. I am waiting for your rational article based on solid arguments to fully reveal my craps.
Mammad
Thanks Fred!
by MargBarIRI (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 07:36 PM PDTIt just funny how this Mammad character can go around calling others traitors.
Mammad, You are so Disappointing
by AnonymousHaha on Sun Aug 03, 2008 07:06 PM PDTFirst you tell us that you are for a secular Iran but that you don't want the Iranians in that secular republic to have freedom of religion
(and freedom of press as a consequence) because multi national companies will try to convert them to Christianity.Then, 1) You come and call anyone who supports or supported the MEK as a traitor. I
am no fan of the MEK. In fact I hate groups like the MEK because they
are responsible for what is going on in the IRI as well. You,
however, an Islamist lefty professor, should know better and should
be a little more sophisticated to say such rubbish. If there will ever be
a "secular" Iran, the MEK will be a part of it. If you could live with
the IRI as the current rulers with nuclear power in their hands, you
should be able to live with the MEK without having to sink so low by
calling them traitors. I think MargBarIR gave you adequate "honorable"
replies to your outlandish and silly "honurable" claims. The reason why
we are stuck with the IRI today is because of people like you and
attitudes like yours and the MEK. A bunch of (I apologize for this
language but there is no other way to describe you and the MEK) Bacheh
Nanehs who did not get what they wanted during the Shah's time and fell
for the garbage subhuman that was named Khomeini. Now after the
revolution, all you leftist Islamist are paying the price and you still
have not learned your lesson. Enough calling people traitor if you
really want a secular Iran. You can not get to a secular Iran with
attitudes like yours.
2) I have seen videos and statements by
you to the effect that A) (I'm paraphrasing) "The IRI will not build
any nukes but will master the technology in case they are threatened by
outside forces, then they will build the bomb to defend themselves"; and
B) below you say "if Iran makes nuclear materials available to any
group to use against
Israel [or any other nation], then a massive retaliation by the US
and/or Israel will be totally justified." Do you think people
are dum? Do you think the Israelis, the Americans or the West are
stupid? Do you honestly expect them to take this chance with this
regime? So Mammad's Scenario is the following:
The Israelis
discover that the IRI has transferred enough material to the Hezbollah
to build a dirty bomb or a suitcase with a mini nuke in it for
example. Then you expect the Israelis to have a right to retaliate?
Isn't this a foolish policy by the West/US/Israel to live by? If we all
care about humans and want to avoid mass casualties, wouldn't your
scenario result in more deaths on all sides? Please do not give me the"
If the Israelis have it or the US has it or the Indians or the Paks
have it than why not the IRI" argument. Its rubbish. Its not the same.
And yes its not fair.Its not fair because its the IRI. Get it into your
head.
I can not believe you are writing this crap and expect people to
fall for it. I think you are very smart but it seems that with your
knowledge you fully understand what the IRI is up to and you are making
excuses for them. It is sad! Very sad.
Haji professor
by Fred on Sun Aug 03, 2008 04:40 PM PDTHere you go again with twisting my words, you say” {Fred} You say that you did not know what the word "Haji" might mean, other than a privilege of a Muslim. Well, now I have told you this. Do not accept it from me. Check it for yourself. If I am correct, then, just to avoid any racist interpretation of what you call me, stop it. “That is not what I said, I know exactly what it means and I did not nor do not now use it in the derogatory term that you claim it is being used. I further stated that I do not believe your claim. Now you are putting the burden of your claim on me to prove.
You also try to twist the statement about you being “world renowned” I specifically said that was the claim you , the person of you made. This statement of yours:“ As for being introduced in the interviews the way you allege I am, I do not write such introductions. The producers do it, after checking my background. In the era of internet, one can easily check the claims of anybody. If you ever have one of such interviews, you will see it for yourself.” Is just nonsense.
As to your bogus arguments about the Islamist republic nuke business, since you either have come up with the original or CASMII lobby has both of you peddle the same argument and totally disregard the fact that it was done clandestinely for nearly two decades. Making excuses for it does not constitute valid argument.
You say: “Since you are a Zionist, and seem to tell me that you have seen my interviews, then you should also have seen how I have condemned Ahmadinejad's remark regarding Israel, and how in my last interview I said that, "if Iran makes nuclear materials available to any group to use against Israel [or any other nation], then a massive retaliation by the US and/or Israel will be totally justified." One cannot be any clearer than this in his stance.” Did I say you did not? But since you brought it up why not condemn Rafsanjani for he was the first one after Khomeini to publically call for annihilation of Israel by nuke during a live broadcast of Friday prayer some years back? And what is this “if Iran makes nuclear material available…” what good does that do after the fact except total destruction of Iran and Israel? This experimenting with the faith of millions and basing it all on a blind trust of the Islamist republic with such stellar record in keeping its promises really take a special level of Islamist devotion if not gullibility.
As I said there is more than enough misery to go around and we all have more or less some share of it at the hands of the Islamist republic. As I also said Majid would not be proud of your activities (not just in nuke) in furtherance of Islamist republic’s agenda.
Lastly the part about you not being an Anti-Semite, you might not be but you sure do make a great impression of one with your liberal usage of the “Zionist” code word in most of your many comments.
Anonym7
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 04:39 PM PDTThank you. I am grateful to you. I am sharmandeh of your kindness. God bless you.
Mammad
Thank you dear professor.
by questions? or not anonymous (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 03:35 PM PDTThank you dear professor.
Do not listen to those entities who are trying to blame you for everything under the sun as if you're the Supreme Leader. Don't get bogged down in trying to defend yourself unless you can refute their misinformation by factual evidence.
Regarding the warmongers of IRanian persuasion in the IRI: I do think that the hardcore revolutionaries are delusional if they think a limited airstrike would work in their benefit then they are sadly mistaken.
War can only happen if both sides miscalculate and think that they have a shot at winning. The Islamic Republic has zero chance of winning this war even through their proxies in the region.
Islamic Republic is outright treasonous if they think even a surgical airstrike going to help them to stay in power at the expense of hundred thousands of lives and treasure. Because, it won't be that simple. The entire infrastructure of Iranian society will be destroyed and one retaliatory act anywhere in the US, Europe, Middle East through terrorist cells will give the US and their Western allies carte blanche to turn Iran into a nuclear wasteland of depleted Uranium or neutron bombs for years to come.
The Islamic Republic better think twice before taking on an "enmey" like the US. No ideology is worth dying for because you can always be wrong.
margbarIRI, great points.
by Farhad Kashani on Sun Aug 03, 2008 03:24 PM PDTmargbarIRI, great points.
Mammad
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sun Aug 03, 2008 03:17 PM PDTMammad says: "I have been attacked so often that I no longer know what people mean"
Mammad, I was attacking you! :)
best,
More questions?
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 03:13 PM PDTIf by "dear professor" you mean me, then let me answer your questions the way I can.
(1) The problem is that if I say anything regarding your question 1, then people will jump on me and accuse me of being an IRI supporter, which I am not. But, fact is fact.
In the last year of the Shah, only 8% of Iran's total energy consumption was provided by natural gas. Today, it is close to 55%. In the last year of the Shah natural gas played an insignificant role in producing electricity, today over 75% of the total electricity in Iran is produced by burning natural gas. Therefore, just as the Shah correctly recognized that Iran could not continue generating electricity the way it was and needed alternative sources of energy, so has the IRI.
18% of Iran's electricity is produced by burning oil. Given the high price of oil, and the immense profit that Iran can make by exporting that oil, not to mention the immense pollution problems that burning oil has created, the plan is to replace that 18% by nuclear reactor by 2025.
(2) Absolutely not. In my opinion, Iran should suspend its uranium enrichment program, for a short, fixed, agreed-upon period of time to clarify all aspects of its program. Iran should do it, provided that its nuclear dossier is returned to the IAEA. In my opinion - and I have explained this in a long, 45 page article in October 2007 -sending Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN and the subsequent UNSC Resolutions against Iran are illegal.
So, if Iran freezes its UEP under the present condition - i.e., on the order of the UNSC due to an illegal Resolution - resumption of its UEP will also need UNSC authorization which will, however, never come, because the US, Britain and France will veto any such authorization. So, if Iran does freeze NOW, it has effectively given up its right to UE. People like me are opposed to this, because it is not in Iran's national interest.
(3) I do not know what the leaders of the IRI think, but I know they believe in one thing: The US has never recognized the legitimacy of the Iranian Revolution and, therefore, in their mind the US wants to overthrow the regime. We know that, at least Bush and company want to do that. Is it a fait accompli? Not, unless the Iranian people want it also, by rising up.
(4) I do not know what Ayatollah Khamenei thinks, but I believe in one things: A faction within the high command of the Sepah believes that a limited exchange with the US is in their interest, because such a limited exchange will not overthrow them, but will actually help them to consolidate their power, wipe out all the reformist/democratic groups and NGOs, and rule for at least two more decades. That is why I and people like me are opposed to military attacks, aside from the obvious destruction and killings that it will produce.
Mammad
Rosie:
by Mammad on Sun Aug 03, 2008 02:50 PM PDTI am humbled. I truly am. I am also grateful for your lavish praise, which I truly do not believe I deserve, not even close. My only ponit in being here is to learn and teach.
Mammad