Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Political Analysis about tensions with Iran

The following is a draft translation from Arabic of a political analysis written by a brother

Question: It is known that Iraq used to perform nuclear researches during the monarchal system and that of the Republican system, things went along smoothly, even when fertilization of Uranium was suspended in 2003, the negotiations during the period of Khatami and before in the period of Rafsanjani, all move around discussions and negotiations which do not reach the limit of escalation. But during the period of Ahmadinajad the crisis was aggravated and was transferred from the International Agency to the Security Council, it is still interacting, can we deduct that the aggravation of the crisis is not because of the nuclear researches, as much as the fact that the president in Iran started to sing outside the flock, and that what was accepted by the previous rulers, concerning the dealing with the American policy similar to what took place during the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, is no more accepted by the present president Ahmadinajad? Therefore, is the crisis going to burst out, and the American attack on the Nuclear establishments in Iran is about to take place as was reported in some newspapers, or is the attack unlikely to happen and the crisis is liable to compromise? What about the punishments which the Security Council might impose on Iran as America is threatening?

The Answer:

In 1968 the treaty of (NPT) banning the spreading of Nuclear weapons was issued, and in 1970 Iran signed this treaty besides 185 other countries. During the era of the Shah, Iran started its nuclear activities with the co-operation of some German and French companies, when Iran bought 15% from the stocks of (Euro-Diff) a French company, and which is considered to be the biggest company for the fertilization of Uranium around the world. But after the Iranian revolution in 1979 all these programs were suspended and France continued to be denied this right. Ali Larjani said: “After the Islamic revolution in Iran, neither the French company (Euro-Diff) nor the German company (Siemens) complied with the contracts which they signed with Iran concerning the nuclear activities.

In 1995 Iran resumed its nuclear activities, after Al-Khomeini had suspended the Iranian nuclear program after his revolution, the program was re started according to the recommendations of Rafsanjani, in January 1995 the agreement of Moscow for nuclear co-operation was signed between Iran and Russia.

Working in the Iranian nuclear program was done when the Reformists -who were pro-Western headed by Khatami- were in authority between 1997-2005, they achieved successive successes in the elections at that period. But after the beginning of resistance in Iraq in summer 2003, the Iranian opposition uncovered some nuclear activities and some Iranian nuclear establishments which were hidden from the inspection of the International Agency for nuclear energy (IAEA). As a result of that Muhammad Al-Baradei -Chief of the nuclear agency- prepared a report about the Iranian nuclear program and presented it to the agency. This is how the Iranian nuclear crisis was stirred. After that, discussion about the Iranian nuclear program began between Iran and the European trio (Britain, France and Germany) besides Russia and China. So Iran during the era of Khatami and particularly on 25 October 2003 signed what is called the Extra Protocol of the (NPT) which allows an immediate inspection by the agency. (Bushahr), (Nantanz) and (Asfhan) were three establishments which caused a lot of debate, the dispute about two of them (Natanz) and (Asfhan) remained without any solution, the dispute about (Bushahr) -which was constructed by Russia- was solved by an agreement signed on 25 February 2005 between Russia and Iran. Yet the crisis continued once in tension and at other times in silence.
After appointing Muhammad Ahmadinajad president for the country, the international doubts and worries increased more and more. Besides that Iran resumed its fertilization of Uranium in (Asfhan) in August 2005, which led to the suspending of the Iranian-European nuclear negotiations. As a result of the pressure Iran stopped the operation of fertilization of uranium temporarily. After that Iran insisted on fertilization of the Uranium on its land, so the International Agency for nuclear energy made a resolution on 25 September 2005 which states that Iran should be transferred at once to the Security Council and with conditions. But Russia -which did not want Iran to be transferred to the Security Council- announced before the meeting of the International Agency for Nuclear Energy on 24 November 2005 that it will hand to Iran a new suggestion, Russia informed Iran about its suggestion through a written message in December 2005, and after that through a delegation which visited Tehran headed by the vice president of the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 January 2006. The suggestion was that Iran can exercise its nuclear activities on the Russian land, but on 10 January 2006 the Russian National Security Council announced that Iran had refused this suggestion.
Hence, the European Trio called the International Agency for nuclear energy to hold an immediate meeting in the period from 2-3 February 2006, to deal with the Iranian nuclear file. During that Ghulam Rida Ansari (the Iranian Ambassador in Moscow) announced that the suggestion of Putin is still valid and could be discussed. On the other hand -Iran declared that if the nuclear file was sent to the security Council- it will then withdraw from the (NPT) and will drive out the inspectors of the International Agency for nuclear energy (IAEA) from its land and put an end to its co-operation with it, and will insist as well on its right of fertilizing the uranium on its land. Although the Iranian file was sent to the Security Council as a resolution of the Board of Trustees of the International Agency for nuclear energy on 11.02.2006, with the majority of 27 votes out of the total members of 35, three countries (Cuba, Syria and Venezuela) objected the resolution, and five countries (Algiers, Byelorussia, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa) refused to vote, while Egypt voted for the resolution, yet Iran did not withdraw from the (NPT) and did not drive out the inspectors of the Agency and did not put an end to its co-operation with it, it was satisfied by declaring that it withdrew the extra Protocol of the (NPT) because the Iranian Parliament did not sanction it, and because it was implemented as an accomplished fact, and that it will prohibit the immediate inspection. It removed all the machines of inspection -such as video cameras- from its nuclear establishments, but it continued to allow non immediate inspection, meaning the permitted inspection.

At the time when the European Trio was busy in negotiating with Iran to find a solution for the crisis, America -which is the principle factor- was trying to lengthen the time of solution, while pretending that it supports the European solutions, the American authorities -whenever the European negotiations with Iran were about to be lenient- used to declare with an indirect threatening that all the alternatives are open to originate tension even when the European Trio made from the incentives -security re-assurements for Iran, Rice declared its refusal, and threatened by punishments- knowing that the punishments will affect most of all Europe, because it has economic interests with Iran, and also China the Asian side in the negotiations, that is because of the nuclear association of Russia with Iran, and the oil relations of China with Iran, add to this that half of the economy of the European countries depend on the oil of the Middle East.

America succeeded in making Europe busy with the Iranian issue, it did not join making excuse that it has no diplomatic relations with Iran, at the time when diplomatically this does not obstruct negotiations as long as there is an office of another country which represents it in Tehran, this is ascertained by the positive answer of America to the call of Iran to negotiate the issue of Iraq. America wants from being outside the negotiations, to make Europe busy in the issue, and to be free from the negotiations atmosphere and find it easy to hinder any solution due to any declaration or to stir a certain subject.

America wants the Iranian crisis to be a drifting mine in the region, Iran and the European trio are aware that any solution with Iran must have the consent of America on it so as to be executed, because it is the effective side in the crisis, yet it watches the negotiations without taking part in them so that alleviation of the issue will be only in its hands.

He who examines the process of this crisis notices the following:

1. Iran did not violate the agreement of banning the spreading of nuclear weapons, but it cooperated fully with the International Agency of Nuclear Energy (IAEA):
- 81 members from the International Agency of Nuclear Energy (IAEA) including America, did not sign the extra protocol of the (NPT) while Iran signed it voluntarily.
- Iran executed practically all the demands of the International Agency of nuclear energy (IAEA) and not only on papers similar to what other countries did.
- Iran prepared a complete document about its program, out of 1300 pages and handed it to the inspectors of the international Agency (IAEA).
- It allowed the inspectors of the International Agency of Nuclear Energy (IAEA) to meet the scientists and official personalities in the nuclear energy.
- Iran opened its nuclear establishments for inspection.
- Iran emphasized -in every occasion- that its nuclear program is peaceful, and that it does not intend at all to produce nuclear weapons.
- Iran suspended all of its nuclear activities last year, while the negotiations were still going on. It also voluntarily stopped the production of spare parts, and the work in each of the nuclear establishments of (Asfhan) and (Natanz), besides the nuclear activities in its other centers.
- It declared that the fertilization of Iran for the Uranium will be limited to its use for peaceful errands under the sponsorship of the agency of nuclear energy.

2. Any resolution which may be issued by the Security Council will not include sensitive economic penalties because the harm will fall upon Russia, China and the European Trio, more than that which will fall upon America and Iran itself, hence the probability of issuing sensitive punishments is far from being done due to the opposition of those countries.

3. Any military action -besides the far probability of its issuing because of the opposition of Russia and China to it- will confuse America because it is already in an actual critical situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially that this year is the year of the half elections of the Congress.

4. The Israeli factor, which is the real locomotive behind America to engage in a military action against the Iranian nuclear establishments, also because of the tight relation between the Neo-Conservatives in America and the Jewish state in Palestine, the situation of America -now- does not allow it to respond to this factor by making a military attack on Iran.

5. So it is more probable that America will try to aggravate the crisis of the negotiations between the European Trio and Iran, and make it fail, so as to win three things:

The First: a justification to establish basis for its missiles in Europe, and to increase its influence around the Black Sea and Kukaz. There are obvious incidents to prove this matter such as the project of transferring the NATO forces through the Black Sea, and the establishing of three new bases in Bulgaria, and basis for the missiles expected to be established in Poland and Check.

The Second: To keep the Gulf Region in tension which America makes use of by leaving its bases and even making more bases under the excuse of crisis.

The Third: To give an image that it is the one which holds the strings of the crisis, and that Iran to negotiate with it is the only way to find a solution and then to normalize the relations openly with Iran.

It is expected that these actions will be activated completely or partially before the elections of the Congress in November 2006, meaning that the curve of the crisis after reaching the top will start to decline whenever the time of election becomes nearer.

6. Some signs of solving the crisis started to be seen by the Iranian-American getting together to negotiations:

Last Wednesday Condoleezza Rice, the American minister for Foreign Affairs said: “Because of the opposition of Russian and China to impose punishments on Iran, the American administration decided to give a time limit (a few weeks) before continuing its pressure to issue an obligatory resolution by the Security Council”.

The message of Ahmadinajad, which points indirectly for an Iranian-American meeting.
The declaration of Anan, calling for the necessity of direct negotiations between Iran and America.

What the Washington Post newspaper reported on this morning 24.05.2006, that Sa’eed Lelaz the former official in the Iranian government said: That high Iranian officials asked some mediators to facilitate direct negotiations with Washington. At the time when a meeting is being held today in London between the countries which have permanent membership in the United Nations and Germany, to discuss the nuclear crisis. All these things point that matters are going in this direction.

As for Ahmadinajad, he is different from the former presidents (Rafsanjani and Khatami) for having excessive feelings about his beliefs in Islam, the idea of the return of Al-Mahdi is overwhelming him, he keeps repeating it in his assemblies, he even mentioned it in his first speech in September 2005 in front of the General Committee of the United Nations. He shows great respect for Ayatullah Muhammad Taji Misbah Yazdi, who shares him with these feelings. These feelings affected Ahmadinajad in his declarations and behaviors, yet he does not swerve from the general policy of the Iranian rule especially that the authority of the president is limited and does not enable him to change even if he wants to, even his declarations have comments from the chiefs of the system for example:

On 17.11.2005 Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported: "Rafsanjani condemns the purification policy which Ahmadinajad is exercising…. On another field Akbar Hashimi Rafsanjai -one of the principle personalities in the Iranian System- condemned, yesterday Wednesday, the political purification operations which the government of the conservative president Mahmud Ahmadinajad is exercising, emphasizing that it serves the goals of the enemies of Iran. Rafsanjani -the former Iranian President- whose declaration was reported by the official news media that; today someone is reconsidering the procedures taken in the past, and is implementing the policy of purification. They started the policy of general isolation on efficient personalities. Thus Rafsanjani will be the first Iranian official who criticizes the policy followed since Ahmadinajad was appointed in August. Rafsanjani who was the opponent of Ahmadinajad in the presidential elections said, these people stain the (reputation) of others, and if we allow them to do so, they will reconsider what was gained by the system and revolution".
Al-Haya also issued something similar on 18.11.2005.
Al-Kana issued on the internet page on 11.02.2006 the following:

(The news agency of the Iranian students (ISNA) mentioned on Thursday that Hasan Ruhani -the former chief of the Iranian nuclear negotiators- warned president Mahmud Ahmadinajad from the isolation of Iran worldwide, because of the continuous nuclear dispute. Ruhani told the Agency as an answer to a question about his point of view concerning the nuclear policies of the country by saying: "We have to take advantage of all the national methods so as not to isolate ourselves. We cannot realize our goals through repetition of slogans and adopting one simple strategy". Ruhani was the former secretary of the National Security Council and head of the nuclear delegation during the presidency of Muhammad Khatami, yet Ruhani refused to work under the presidency of Ahmadinajad successor of Khatinmi. Ruhani also said: "Those who are aware of the International affairs must be more eager not to commit any fault". The former Iranian president Akbar Hashimi Rafsanjani had warned last week, the government of Ahmadinajad from allowing the nuclear issue to go out of control.)

So after the declaration of Ahmadinajad that “Israel must be wiped out of the map” which is a duty for all Muslims and Iran being one of them, a high rank Iranian official declared as if he is correcting the slip of tongue of Ahmadinajad “the Palestinians have to eliminate system of Zionists”. And thus he put away the duty from the others.

So even though Ahmadinajad differs from those who preceded him in his strong feelings and being more near to the purity of the simple Muslims, yet concerning the general policy in the international relations, he is controlled by what the system was like since its establishment.
It is true that America (prefers) Rafsanjani and Khatami than Ahmadinajad, yet the change of presidents in Iran does not give them the authority to change the general policy of the state because their authority is limited.

That is why the nuclear crisis is not personal and related to the presence of Ahmadinajad in the presidency, it is connected with mingling international interests headed by America and the European Union and then Russia and China, all these countries deal with the crisis according to their interests and how far it affects the region.

The Conclusion:

Ahmadinajad has abundant feelings about Islam as he sees it, especially in the issue of the return of Al-Mahdi, this affects his behaviors and declarations. Yet he does not differ from Rafsanjani and Khatami in the general policy of the system, because the authority of the presidents to make changes is very limited according to the constitution of the state.

Iran did not violate the agreement of limitation of nuclear spreading, it allows the inspectors and implements the agreement more than any other country, its fertilization of Uranium is very little and far from producing nuclear weapons, this is besides the continuous re-assuring of Iran that the goal is peaceful and under the supervision of the International Agency.

America is behind the aggravation of the crisis and hindering the negotiations between Iran and the European Trio to solve it, because America wants to realize the following goals:
Make Europe busy in security issue so that America will find justification in establishing Missile bases in Europe.

To create a state of tension in the Gulf region allows America to have an increasing existence for it there.

To give an international and regional image that abating the heat of the crisis lies in its hands alone, so as to go into an open atmosphere of negotiations with Iran and normalize the relations with it, after the failure of the Europeans in solving it.

So, the response of America, in the near future ,to the stress of the Israeli factor on the Neo-Conservatives in spite of their tight relation with Jew entity -to attack the Iranian nuclear establishments- is a weak one, it will nevertheless reassure state of Jews by putting restrictions -during the negotiations- on the fertilization of uranium to a limited rate so as not to produce nuclear weapons, try also to fertilize the uranium outside Iran and then transfer it to Iran, under the supervision of the International Agency, this is besides the commitment of America to state of enemy to protect it.

Transferring the file to the Security Council is not expected to issue sensitive punishments on Iran, because its excessive harm will be upon Russia, the European Union and China, this make them object to the strong punishments or else it should be mild punishments in order not to harm those countries. As for the Council to issue a resolution which allows military action, is also far from taking place according to the visible international data.

26 Rabi'ul Awwal 1426 AH
24 May 2006 CE

No comments: