The end of Musharraf?

Pakistan held elections today, the results of which are flowing in as we speak...

The Times:

President Pervez Musharraf’s supporters conceded defeat last night in a landmark parliamentary election that could seal his political fate and resurrect democracy in Pakistan after eight years of military rule.

But while the two main opposition parties appeared to have swept the vote, neither was expected to win an outright majority, setting the stage for a coalition government in this chronically unstable country.
...
Final results are not expected until tomorrow, but preliminary figures suggest that the PPP will win the most seats followed by the Pakistan Muslim League (N) led by Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister.

One can only hope an opposition party will emerge as winner in this election, and that the dictatorial Musharraf will finally face impeachment. Most Pakistanis want him out anyway.

Meanwhile, a NYT op-ed warns that instability in Pakistan is a problem to all of us — the south Asian country holds active nuclear weapons (not to mention that it's a hotbed of Islamic terrorism).

The hyped-up Iranian nuclear threat

Not to rain on the hawks' parade, but apparently Iran stopped nuclear weapons production back in 2003.

In a blow to Bush administration hawks demanding military strikes on Iran, a US intelligence report reveals that Tehran's secret nuclear weapons programme was shut down four years ago.

The finding which has come as a surprise to friends and foes of the US concluded: "We do not know whether [Iran] currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." That is in sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons".

US officials said the report showed that the Bush administration was right to conclude that Tehran intends to develop nuclear weapons in the long term. They also said that Iran was forced to end its secret programme because of financial sanctions and diplomacy backed up with the threat of force.

Perhaps peaceful means such as diplomacy and sanctions (creating political pressures within a country) work after all.

The report is sure to cause a stir within the hawkish White House, but the NIE did put in a few good words about the Bush administration, just to ease the strain of conflicting views.

Here are some facts about the National Intelligence Estimate report.

President Bush, after spending years raising the hype around Iran's nuclear program, found a way to twist the tension-relieving report into just another warning about the Iranian threat. Never mind the evidence his jousts with Iran over nukes have been relying on have been pulled out from under him; I am sure hawks are not too pleased either with the recent intelligence report.

If anything it is good news that there is less pressure on all parties to make a move in the Iran nuke stalemate. But even though Iran may have stopped developing nuclear weapons for now, it's good to keep up the pressure, says a Guardian commentator. Iran may have suspended its program, but that doesn't mean it cannot, or will not, start it up again. What Bush predicted as WWIII with Iran seems very unlikely at this point.

Iran's diplomatic voice of moderation silenced

One semi-moderate hardliner (Larijani) is dismissed as another ultra-hardliner (Pres. Ahmadinejad) stands

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, viewed by the West as a moderating influence in Tehran, resigned before crucial talks with Europe this week over Iran’s nuclear program, signaling that officials here may have closed the door to any possible negotiated settlement in its standoff with the West.

How will the resignation of Larijani affect the already-deadlocked negotiations between Iran and the West over its 'peaceful' — which UN Security Council veto-welder Russia troublingly believes it is — nuclear program. Will the Islamic state become more radical — and rogue?

A BBC News reader summed this all up best: "The Iranian president obviously feel[s] he holds the all the aces". When — if ever — will the ayatollah step in to help relieve the massive tension between Iran and the international community, as he has before (e.g. with the recent temporary release of a jailed scholar)? Has the tipping point for US-Iran relations come to pass, meaning a potentially successful one-on-one meeting is not a possibility whatsoever? (Stubbornness on both sides is to blame.)

Iran has been offered a huge amount of incentives by American and European diplomats; it has played games and refused to take the rational action. Ahmadinejad is probbaly just waiting out for a sweeter deal, as diplomacy is currently at a virtual standstill, similar to the one worked out with North Korea. But whereas N Korea had only nukes, Iran, which is still in the early stages of nuclear development, has plenty of something everyone wants: oil.

Diplomatic progress with North Korea

North Korea has vowed to disable much of its controversial nuclear program following intense diplomatic work over the past few months.

North Korea has agreed to declare all its nuclear programmes and disable its main atomic reactor by the end of the year under US supervision, according to a six-nation agreement released Wednesday.

The deal -- the second phase of a long-running process aimed at ending the North's atomic weapons drive -- was immediately welcomed by US President George W. Bush, as well as other six-party participants Japan and South Korea.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is South Korean, also welcomed the move and appealed to all the parties concerned "to step up their work for denuclearisation".

The United States recently pledged millions in food aid to the country, and last summer a main nuclear reactor was shut down, albeit not permanently. However, as we are dealing with often-deceptive North Korea, it's important not to become too happy about this perceived progress until the 'denuclearisation' is indeed accomplished. Diplomacy looks to be on the right track with North Korea, with even the US helping it along.

Even though skepticism should not be ceased at North Korea's motives, this latest move is one of great importance. Not only has North Korea made progress, but so have China and America, who have both learnt valuable lessons from this very long N Korea nuclear series. While it is not over yet, it is remarkable how progress was made so fast, and how far we are from one year ago. The most important thing in diplomacy, besides being open, diplomatic, and fair, is persistence. The New York Times praised the six-party diplomacy that resulted in the North Korean deal in an editorial today.

From the beginning, the North Koreans wanted two things from their nuclear program: not weapons to threaten the world or for power purposes, but money and financial incentives and leverage for getting those kinds of gains. Iran will want at least just as sweet a deal. Given its meddling in other foreign affairs, it will want to grandstand for as long as possible before it level-headidly sits down to the negotiating table. Oddly enough, the US will do roughly the same thing. But instead of painting itself as the best as Iran does, it will try to paint Iran in a negative light, and sound objective doing so (something which the Iranian hard-liners cannot do well).

However, people are wondering whether the same slow diplomacy that worked with North Korea will work with Iran in solving its nuclear weapons dispute. Still, a majority of experts believe that North Korea with nukes is far more dangerous than Iran, given its great poverty and lack of economic wealth (whereas Iran has oil); in addition, its regime is even more rogue and might be more open with giving nuclear information and technology to terrorists than even the notoriously terrorist-supporting Iran. North Korea is also far more advanced in its nuclear development than Iran.

The Korean peninsula was also in the news due to a much-awaited meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea. The meeting resulted in an agreement of mutual peace and cooperation today, which is probably more than most analysts were expecting (many viewed the meeting to be purely symbolic and more of a help to North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-il than South Korea's president Roh Moo-hyun).

A year ago North Korea was acting as rebellious and dangerous as ever, testing missiles and touting its nukes. Today, the situation has changed dramatically. China's use of influence and America's new-found diplomatic openness contributed to the successes of today. But the nuclear game with North Korea is not over yet.

Nuclear news, good and bad

Trouble, progress, and contradictions of nuclear proportions this past Sunday.

Good
North Korea apparently has agreed to nuclear shutdown, says respectable US envoy Christopher Hill. This follows the closure of one of the despotic republic's reactors earlier this year.


Bad
Iran is moving forward with its nuclear plans, even though the IAEA reports conflict with 'official' statements about how far the Islamic republic really is in the development of nuclear weapons — oops, I mean totally peaceful civilian energy (of course). The announcement that Iran is operating 3,000 centrifuges followed an IAEA statement saying Iran has been cooperating.

Methinks Ahmedinejad's bark is far worse than his bite. How could Iran be slowing down, as the IAEA insists, if it is making the rapid progress its president speaks of? Ahmedinejad, who is, I might add, not actually at the top of Iran's hierarchy (even though he's president), remains defiant to UN sanctions and pressure from the West. He is losing support.

The worst move a foreign state could make (*cough*, *cough* Israel and America) could make would be to attack Iran militarily. Study after study has shown that bombing Iran would be counter-productive, would only increase hate of America abroad, and would empower Ahmedinejad and radical Iranians. It's one of the stupidest things a western regime — or Israel — could do right now. Iran is a threat, but we dealt with North Korea diplomatically, didn't we? It tales patience.

N Korea... gone good?

...Well, not good per se, but definitely better than it was a few months ago. The world was in shock after North Korea tested its first ever nuclear weapon — though the specific details are skewed (i.e. everyone says a different thing about how the tests went, if there were any). At any rate, things did not look good. Somewhere along the road America stuck its tail between its legs and started working more closely with the international community, and China in particular, to try to defuse the North Korean nuke situation. The Bush administrations nearly militant, cowboy diplomacy was not appropriate in this situation (or most others, for that matter...). US envoy Christopher Hill did a good job; it appears that diplomacy and cooperation — not as much unilateral war — works after all.

The North Koreans, impoverished and poor, have long been in isolation. China is the only they can turn too, but China worries that a collapse of the authoritarian state would spark a mass exodus into China, thus hurting its infrastructure and economy. After the nuke tests, a defiant as ever North Korea lost much of the foreign aid that keeps it from imploding. As negotiations inched forward the N Koreans steadily brought in the benefits as the international community conceded that to secure and eventually shut down the nuclear program they would need to give benefits — whether fuel or food — to the Stalinist pariah state, officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, quite possibly the most factually-incorrect name of any nation-state on the planet.

The worry was not that N Korea would use the nuclear weapons, but that it would sell the resources and technologies to, say, Al Qaeda. Because of the semi-developed state of the nuclear program, North Korea has always been a bigger threat than the showy Iran, which has more ties to the outside world, not to mention resources. A February deal was the result of these negotiations.

So, you might be asking yourself, why all this background information? Well, because another major development in the nuclear diplomacy between North Korea and others is upon us. Just recently the process appeared to be stalled following some wrangling between the United States and N Korea over a frozen bank account in Macau. After that was cleared up the next step was for North Korea to begin shutting down its nuclear reactor(s). Now...

UN inspectors have begun verifying that North Korea has really closed down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, the top US nuclear envoy has said.

Christopher Hill's comments come a day after Pyongyang told Washington it had shut the reactor.

North Korea's announcement was welcomed by both the US and South Korea.

North Korea agreed to close the reactor in February in return for economic aid. Under the deal, Pyongyang got its first heavy fuel oil shipments on Saturday.

The nuclear team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived in North Korea on Saturday to start the Yongbyon inspection.

If confirmed, the shut-down would be the first stage in disabling the North's nuclear programme.
...
N KOREA NUCLEAR DEAL
N Korea to "shut down and seal" Yongbyon reactor, then disable all nuclear facilities
In return, will be given 1m tons of heavy fuel oil
N Korea to invite IAEA back to monitor deal
Under earlier 2005 deal, N Korea agreed to end nuclear programme and return to non-proliferation treaty
N Korea's demand for light water reactor to be discussed at "appropriate time"
...
Mr Hill has emphasised that the closure of the Yongbyon reactor is only the first step in decommissioning North Korea's nuclear programme.

He has said he expects a full list of the country's nuclear facilities within months - as agreed in the February deal.
...
The participating countries - South and North Korea, Russia, Japan, the US - are expected to negotiate the details of the next phase of the North's decommissioning process, namely the declaration of its nuclear programme and disabling the facilities.

North Korea isn't expected to really "up the ante", as one Columbia University expert said (qtd. from an interview on the BBC World Service), but it may look like it wants more because the February diplomatic deal with the N Koreans was "incomplete". It was hard to get all parties to agree on some essential requirements, so the deal ended up having holes in it. (Nonetheless it's better to have it than not.) As it stands the North Koreans really aren't getting much from the West in this deal. However they are complying and working towards shutting down their nuclear devises, as per the deal. We need to look beyond just shutting down the nuclear facilities, said the expert, focusing in the larger picture of totally disabling them so the nuclear program cannot be restarted with a flick of a switch — especially considering the inevitable instability in Kim Jong-il's nation. Just like in the case of Pakistan and Iran, extremists and terrorists cannot get their hands on this nuclear material, but state instability makes it all the more dangerous that they could. Unlike even the most renegade state, terrorists won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons.

By any means the supposed shutting down of the Yongbyon reactor is a triumph for diplomacy and a testing example for future cases of nuclear diplomacy, like the one that may develop more seriously with Iran. Any kind of precedent his helpful; hopefully it won't be needed. Hint to world leaders: this is as good a time as ever to talk about nuclear nonproliferation and push it on a global scale, stop being so hypocritical on the issue — yes I'm talking to you, major powers —, and emphasize that often slow and steady, i.e. diplomacy, often wins the race.


On a totally different note, In Perspective won the "Super Saturday" Blog of the Day award.

CIA authorized to destabilize Iran's government (?)

The CIA returning to the dark days of overthrowing stable governments and causing more trouble than its worth?

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

Many have called ABC News "traitors" for its report. I call it journalism. Uncovering unacceptable programs like this and letting the public know what its government is doing is something journalists are supposed to do — not clog the airways with worthless muck like Anna Nicole Smith stories. We deserve to know what junk the government is doing, especially if it is as bad as invading on the sovereignty of another state! Iran is not an enemy. There is no war. Therefore, authorizations like the one alleged above is outrageous.

There is no way in hell this CIA program can help the situation in Iran. Iran is defiantly moving on with its nuclear program, but overthrowing the government would likely result in a takeover by diehard radicals — the real danger. And if you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bad, wait until you see the guys just itching for power over Iran's still undeveloped yet potentially daunting nuclear program.

Attacking Iran militarily would also only make the problem worse.

So what should we do with Iran? When all else seems to fail, time for real diplomacy. And sanctions? Are they helping? Let's wait and see. But sanctions shouldn't be the only diplomatic action the United States is pushing for.

technorati tags: Iran, cia, covert, black-ops, ABC+news, news, spy, journalism, politics, united+states, sanctions, iran+nukes, ahmadinejad

Political stability against extremists: the real Mid-East danger

Iran is in the news more and more. Between its capture of 15 British sailors, to the advancement of its nuclear weapons program and defiance of sanctions. Much of it — from anti-Zionist rhetoric to nuclear politics — might just be an act. Like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Iran's Ahmadinejad is populist and very showy.

At the risk of sounding like I'm in Shakespeare's time: How will this all fadge?

I think there are many factors that cause discomfort on both sides — Iran and the United States — one issue being the Iranian president's harsh anti-Israel rhetoric, another being the allegations of meddling in Iraq (which could just be a scapegoat excuse for the Bush administration, who often create false scapegoats), along with Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear program. I think if Iran, Israel, the US, and Palestine all were more open-minded, a treaty of peace and political recognition could be in order and would help relations between all of the countries — including those between Israel and the US and the Arab and Muslim world.

Iran still needs to at least let IAEA inspectors in. But with the political situations at home for America, Iran, and even Israel and Palestine, who knows who will next be in charge and how that will shape this nuclear diplomacy we are seeing more and more of. I think the US would rather have the prospect of its own security — even if that is only a sense of security — than the prospect of peace. American foreign policy has consistently focused more on preventing aggression than promoting peace. There are still plenty in the government who think peace is best achieved by though military force.

Ahmadinejad may think his hard-line rhetoric is helping him win over supporters abroad, but it is not helping him at home. Respect is an issue all sides need to learn, for without it, real diplomacy cannot take place and real progress cannot be made. It is now in the mutual interest of both Iran and the United States to work together on Iraq. It is in the interest of the US and Israel (since they are allies) to work with Israel's neighbors; peace between Israel and the Arab world also helps lower international terrorism and Muslim extremism, as does quelling the sectarian violence in Iraq. The Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as the civil war in Iraq, have both spread Islamic fundamentalism and created new waves of hopelessness, aggression, and, thus, terrorism and irrationality to those lands in such strife and their allies and supporters.

A big issue is political stability. If the current hardline government is taken over by extremists — because the government isn't delivering what the people want (thus the radicals get public support) or some other reason — those extremists may have an industrial level nuclear program in their hands. That is not good. The same thing goes for Pakistan. In that case, the US is close to the country (Pakistan), which empowers the extremists in a way. Pakistan is already a nuclear state — imagine if Islamic terrorists got hold of nuclear weapons. However, in Iran's case there does need to be a level of dialogue. Isolation would empower extremists even more than seeing their country talk to a country they despise would.

In short: the US needs to talk with Syria to get it away from Iran; needs to talk with Iran for plenty of other reasons; and needs to talk to all in the Middle East because of the Iraq issue, along with the problem of terrorism. Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are all oppressive governments with ties to militias. However, all three view terrorism as as much of a threat as the United States does, if not more (extremists are in their own backyards).

Israel and the US alike need to stop ticking off those in the Middle East and empowering radicals, the opposite of their goals but nonetheless they are direct products of their policy. All parties need to learn from history. A closed, aggressive, hardline state cannot last long in the modern world of politics — at least it cannot when extremist movements more conservative than their own governments are brewing within and close to their borders. A regional power, but outcast, cannot continue annoying its neighbors, nor can it concede.

The world's superpower, seen as imperial and bad as ever by those in the Mid-East, cannot continue in its rogue anti-terroirsm fight when it makes the terrorist situation worse for itself and others (fire paradox again). It's perfect to choose the US as the face of evil: its big and powerful, yet faulty, as the Iraq debacle has shown, and does not position itself as benevolent or afraid to use preemptive force. It also sides with Israel through thick and thin.

America finds Iran as easy a scapegoat (for Iraq troubles) and poster-child for evil (see 'war on terror' and 'axis of evil') as Iran does for America ('death to the great Satan). That kind of politics doesn't help anyone but the extremists and the Manichaens like Bush and Ahmadinejad. Neither is doing swimingly at home either. (Keep in mind Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. Although he is the most internationally visible, he is probably roughly third on the chain of command.) Supremacy in a region as volatile as the Middle East is a tour de force. That being said, it often requires either massive brute force or political ingenuity.

technorati tags: iran, in+the+news, politics, international+relations, foreign+policy, ahmadinejad, united+states, usa, israel, syria, terrorism, islamic+extremism, pakistan, nukes

Fresh sanctions on Iran

Iran is receiving more punishment by the international community over its stubborn diplomacy and inability to halt its un-inspected nuclear (weapons) program.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to approve a resolution that bans all Iranian arms exports and freezes some of the financial assets of 28 Iranian individuals and entities linked to Iran's military and nuclear agencies.

The 15 to 0 vote came one day after President Mahmoud Admadinejad canceled plans to travel to New York to confront the Security Council, leaving his foreign minister to speak in his place. It unfolded as 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iranian naval forces were transferred to Tehran, escalating diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
...
The measures adopted Saturday fell far short of the punishing trade, travel and military sanctions initially proposed by the United States and its European partners. But they insisted they were pleased with the outcome.

More penalties may be coming in 60 days unless Iran allows IAEA inspectors to examine its program and provide proof it is not developing a weapons program — a common belief among... well everyone. When will the straw (sanctions) break the camel's (Iran) back? President Admadinejad is already facing enough political pressure over economic and nuclear issues at home. Like US President Bush, I think he will push the envelope of presidential arrogance and defy the public and other branches of the government for as long as possible.

Even though the situation is worsening diplomatically, the EU insists the door is still open for further talks. Whenever it is presented with a good deal, Iran turns it down. However, the US also needs to be less stubborn in its diplomacy; opening the channel of dialogue on Iraq is a step in the right direction.

Are sanctions accomplishing their goals? It's anybody's guess. With Iraq under Saddam, sanctions made everything worse, and argably made Saddam even more powerful while killing many of his people. Some experts think Iran is feeling the pressure of financial sanctions, though. Remember many Iranians are young and globalized; many like their western goods too.

Iran is more likely to go the way of North Korea and accept a deal. Like with N Korea, the world will just have to wait until Iran has enough leverage to get what it wants. Diplomacy is slow, often tedious process, but it is better than, say, the policy the United States held for Iraq. Personally, I would rather have a proto-nuclear state than a failed state whose conflict could spill out of its borders and breed international terrorism. Experts view the Iran threat as somewhat hyped-up too.

By the way, the Iranian capture of 15 British soldiers off of its coast has to be one of the dumbest political moves its made in recent history. The capture is unwarranted and stupid anyways. The UK is a UNSC power with ties to all the other great powers; Iran is not. Now the UK may join the US in having harshly negative feelings for Iran, only worsening the diplomatic measures on several fronts.

Strike on Iran would only help its nuclear program...

An attack on Iran — see here for background — would prove only counter-intuitive, says yet another scholarly report (PDF).

Summary/abstract:

The prospect of a nuclear Iran causes acute concern not only in the United States and Israel, but also in Europe, the Middle East and most of the rest of the world. Recent indications from the USA point towards possible military strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. The aim of such strikes would be to put back by many years any ambitions elements in the Iranian regime may have for nuclear weapons.
...
far from stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, military attacks would probably accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

The reasons for this counter-intuitive outcome are that:

* Limited intelligence about Iran's nuclear programme means that many hundreds of strikes would still not destroy all nuclear related facilities and materials.
* Iran could then move from a gradual and relatively open nuclear programme, to a clandestine crash nuclear weapons programme using secret facilities, salvaged materials, and possibly procuring supplies from the black market, outside of Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty controls.
* Under crash nuclear weapons programme conditions, Iran could build a nuclear weapon within two years if the decision was made. Which is less time than the evidence suggests Iran could manage with the current programme.

In the long-term, the report concludes, Iran cannot be deterred from attaining a nuclear weapons capability by bombing its facilities.

The same kind of idea can be tied to many counterterrorism efforts (see 'fire paradox'), especially those in the US's "war on terror", that only get a population more angry and garners the terrorists more support. In fact, terrorist operations can have the same effect. The Germans' terrorizing of Britain during World War II only increased the Brits fervor to defeat the Nazis; the 9/11 terror attacks got America riled up too, albeit in a fashion that has led to irrational political decisions.

Don't forget Libya

On top of the situation with America's new, updated nukes, Libya is saying that the US and others have not followed through with their bargain on its nuclear ambitions. Libya has been making some headway lately and, while the North African state is still far from acceptable, it has been getting better in the eyes of the US State Department.

BBC News:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has said his country has not been given adequate compensation for its decision to renounce nuclear weapons in 2003.

Speaking to the BBC, Colonel Gaddafi said the failure by the West to reward Libya meant Iran and North Korea were reluctant to follow Tripoli's lead.

He insisted there would be no return to the confrontation of the past, however.

Sanctions were lifted after Libya ended its nuclear weapons programme, and the US and UK have resumed diplomatic ties.

Libya was also removed from the US list of state sponsors of terror, a major step towards international rehabilitation.

If the West hopes to placate North Korea into ceasing its nuclear operations and quell Iran's nuclear revolution, it must make an example of Libya and follow through with its end of the bargain. Not doing so would only exasperate the Libyan situation, but would make nations like N Korea and Iran less likely to accept a deal in the future or carry out current deals.

A big problem Libya's nuclear program may have been averted, but forgetting to continue with the semi-fixed problems of one's past will make that and other problems worse. Put another way: keep honest and fair with Libya, and other countries watching may change their minds about how you do business.

technorati tags: gaddafi, libya, united+states, international+relations, libyan+nuclear, iran, north+korea, politics, news

America's new nukes

Just what the world needs: more/new nukes. How is this going to help the North Korean (which is ok for now) and Iranian (not doing as well) nuclear situations, and any aspiring N Koreas and Irans?

BBC News:

The Bush administration has selected the design for America's first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades.

US officials say the warhead will not add to the country's nuclear arsenal, but will replace existing missiles.

Critics have complained it sends the wrong signal at a time when the White House is leading efforts to curb Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

The biggest issue is perception. This move — at such a wrong time — is horrible PR. People know the US has a large nuclear arsenal and is not working on making it any smaller, but this only raises the visibility; reminding people of America's nukes. In a casual way, the US is showing off its nuclear might, while only embellishing its reputation for hypocrisy (e.g. you cannot fund rogue militias, we can; you cannot have nukes, we can; you cannot start a preemptive invasion, but we can; you cannot break international law, we can).

The US may be a superpower, but that does not make it all-powerful, especially in the eyes of an 18-year-old willing to do anything for his people, who are devastated by what they see as American evil. It will give states wanting nuclear weapons yet another reason to have them, and will another battle-cry from those states to garner the support of their people. North Korea is already closed off enough with only state-run propaganda flowing through its information lines, and Iranians, like many others, have plenty of bad feelings for the United States.

Message to the US: the Cold War is over. Posturing and a nuclear politic will only make things worse. This story is just the tip of the iceberg as the United States has ambitions for an anti-missile system — in Europe.

technorati tags: politics, united+states, international+relations, nukes, US+nuclear+weapons, iran, north+korea, news, perception

US has plans on attacking Iran, nukes and all

The BBC reports on US plans to attack Iran. The question is whether the excuse would be Iran's nuclear program or its Iraq meddling (thus its scapegoat status to the Bush White House's foreign policy rhetoric).

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

If bombing Iran equals persuasion in the US government's book, then we're in bigger trouble. No doubt an attack would only inflame anti-US sentiment in Iran, the Muslim world in general, and, well the world as a whole. Iran is probably looking for a similar deal to the North Korean one. The North Koreans are even more dangerous, say experts.

[Article continues:]

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two Triggers
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
...
The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.
...
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Iraq is already displeased over the seeming proxy war between the United States and Iran being fought there.

Iranian, as well as American, politics will play a major role in how this all comes out. Both the presidents of the US and Iran, Bush and Ahmadinejad, are not doing so well politically; at home and abroad. Funny enough, their political slumps are for the same reasons: the economy and foreign policy. Ahmadinejad's antagonistic, provocative nuke policy and Bush's cowboy, take-no-prisoners Iraq and 'war on terror' policies has kept each respective ruler busy — too busy to notice their country's economy is going down the tubes.

The Bush administration has already shown its defiance of Congress time and time again. Nonetheless, I doubt the US government has the nerve or power to launch a synchronized, large scale, super attack on Iran. To destroy all its nuclear facilities — many of which are secret and unknown and those known are hard to reach (e.g. in a mountain) — the US would need to kill countless thousands and use bunker-buster missiles, which are nuclear themselves. Overall, it is out of the question.

Assuming the BBC has 'learned' right, the United States' potential Iran attack plan is ludicrous. If attacking is the US's idea of persuasion, we are all in for a bumpy ride.

technorati tags: bush, ahmadinejad, politics, iran+nukes, US+attack+iran, war+on+terror, united+States, iran+nuclear+program, iraq, mahmoud+ahmadinejad, george+w+bush, bbc, congress, news

The grain of salt nuke deal

There have been more developments in the North Korean nuclear program story. Following reports of successful talks between N Korea and the West — with N Korea's goal being incentives and political leverage and the West's goal being to stop N Korea's nuclear weapons program — there are signs of hope, though that hope is taken with a grain of salt.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems pleased with the deal, as was President Bush (also "pleased"), though US Ambassador John Bolton was not. I guess he would rather the US nuke N Korea or something like that. Rice also indicated the deal should send a message to Iran over its nuclear program that the West is willing to deal; Iran certainly already knows that. Rice has shown worry that Iran would follow North Korea's defiant footsteps in the past.

One aspect of this deal is actually a breakthrough: the ability of North Korea and the United States to potentially lessen the hostility felt mutually between them. I agree with the International Crisis Group's Peter Beck in that, "After years of mistakes the United States has decided to stop digging a hole for itself". In the days of President Clinton the US worked on making progress with N Korean relations. However, since Bush took the helm, North Korea has been ignored and the policy has led to more aggressiveness from the North Koreans, including their excuse for making nuclear weapons: the US's unchecked aggression. For all Clinton's faults, at least he did not make an "axis of evil" (Wikipedia), list already unfriendly nations on it without a real argument for doing so, imply they are all working together in an evil way, and thus making those countries even more peeved at the US — and increasing provocation and response.

Bush has been heavily criticized for his nuclear diplomacy, whether it be hostile in re to weapons with Iran or N Korea, or friendly but still proliferating like with India. His cowboy style has dominated his failed foreign policy, but the White House seems to have finally caught a break. I wonder which parties had took the most initiatives in these talks. Often, in the case of both Iran and N Korea, two-way talks are wanted from the non-US side, though, ironically of the US because of its often unilateral approach, those calls for direct talks are turned down.

So is it the end of the secret state of North Korea's nuclear program?, you may ask. Probably not. It is only the main reactor being closed as a result of this deal, who knows what other technology they have, and they're not too trustworthy.

CFR has a good interactive guide to the Korean peninsula crisis. It offers much needed background on how North and South Korea got to where they are today, and more.

Many pundits and analysts say the US should push for full dismantlement of the N Korea's nukes; some state the state is too closed and rogue to trust, and that makes dismantlement and enforcement of any deals made all the more harder.

technorati tags: Condoleezza+Rice, bush, john+bolton, rice, north+korea, n+korea, nuke, north+korea+nuclear+program, cfr, korea, news, international+relations, politics, world+politics, iran

Breakthrough in North Korean nuke talks

I was skeptical of this news at first when CNN reported it earlier today, but it seems to be making the press rounds now...

BBC News:

Delegates at the six-party North Korea talks have reached a tentative deal, the US nuclear negotiator has said.

A "final text" outlining initial steps for disarming North Korea was now being referred to each government for approval, Christopher Hill said.

His comments followed late-night meetings on what was meant to be the last day of the talks in Beijing.

If approved, a deal would be a significant step forward in a process stalled since September 2005.

There has been no comment from North Korea.

The BBC's Daniel Griffiths in Beijing says the deal has yet to be approved by the leaders of each country involved.

Even then it would only mark the first step in what is likely to be a very long, slow process with further delays almost inevitable, he says.

The current round of talks - aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear programme - began on Thursday with a renewed sense of optimism from all sides.

But negotiations faltered over the amount of energy aid the North was demanding in exchange for disarming.

Reports suggest North Korea is seeking large-scale deliveries of heavy fuel oil in return for shutting down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

If only we could get this seeming progress on Iran's nuclear program. N Korea tested a nuclear missile back in October and there was plenty of reaction from the international community. As one might guess, the reaction was one of scorn and dismay as one of the world's most brutal closed states tested the most powerful weapons. What is really worrying is not that N Korea possibly could nuke a barren area in Alaska, but their other motives. N Korea is not well off financially — at all — so their best moves are to use nukes as leverage from incentives from the international community and sell nuclear technology, whether it be to al-Qaeda or Libya. The whole nuclear missile incident was confusing to say the least.

China has played a major role in the while issue. Obviously they do not want their neighbor to collapse for a number of reasons; the fact that both North Korea and China are supposedly communist is really not a factor at this point.

Three cheers for diplomacy — in re to North Korean nukes? We will have to see.

technorati tags: news, north+korea, nukes, north+korea+nuclear

The Iran nuke story continues...

Not only is there drama between the West and Iran over Iraq, but also over Iran's nuclear program (Wikipedia). This little dance has been going on for years, with the main parties being the United States, United Kingdom, and the rest of the UN Security Council, Germany, the UN itself (IAEA), and, of course, on the other side of the room, Iran. Developments in the news on the Iranian program and the western response have come and gone over the years, but there is some new news now...

Washington Post:

Facing the prospect of broader international sanctions, Iran's president and national security chief on Sunday offered to resume negotiations over their country's nuclear program and eased up on some of the contentious rhetoric of the past, including threats to destroy Israel.

In Munich, Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, briefly met with European diplomats for the first time since talks collapsed in September and said Iran was willing to return to formal discussions.

He also said his country had "no intention of aggression against any country," adding that Iran "posed no threat to Israel" in particular, despite past vows from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel "off the map."

Meanwhile in Tehran, Ahmadinejad also said that Iran was willing to resume negotiations, although both he and Larijani rejected a condition for talks set by the U.N. Security Council that Iran first freeze its uranium enrichment program. "We are prepared for dialogue but won't suspend our activities," Ahmadinejad said.

In an address commemorating the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution that overthrew the shah of Iran, Ahmadinejad said his government had made recent progress in its nuclear development but did not give specifics. Some diplomats and analysts had expected him to announce that Iran had made a breakthrough in its efforts to enrich uranium.

U.S. and European officials expressed doubt about the sincerity of Iran's stated willingness to talk. "Offering to negotiate but saying suspension's off the table raises a real question about the sincerity of what he said," U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt told reporters in Germany after Larijani's appearance at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, an annual gathering of top defense officials and diplomats from around the world.

In Paris, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said it would be "unacceptable" to hold negotiations unless Iran first agrees to freeze its nuclear activities. "We have to be exceedingly clear and very rigorous on this proposition," he said.
...
Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, but U.S. and European officials say Tehran is pushing to develop atomic weapons in violation of international treaties.

On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency suspended some technical aid to Iran, which is under a Feb. 21 deadline from the Security Council to stop enriching uranium or face more international sanctions.
...
Larijani also said Iran was a force for regional stability in the Middle East and had no designs on any of its neighbors, including Iraq and Israel. "We pose no threat, and if we are conducting nuclear research and development, we are no threat to Israel," he said.

Instead, Larijani blamed the United States for bringing chaos to the Middle East and South Asia, noting that it had invaded two of Iran's neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. He echoed some of the criticism leveled a day earlier in Munich by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who harshly accused the United States of making the world more dangerous than at any point during the Cold War.

On the Putin topic, see this post.

In addition, the European Union is toughening its approach on Iran by setting sanctions. At least they remain open to talks, something the US should do with Iran on both the important topics of Iraq and nukes.

Keep in mind Ahmadinejad is not doing so hot politically, and the government, part-democracy, part-theocracy, is divided on the nuclear situation.

Funny how this segway has led from Iran, Iraq, and the US to Iran, their nuclear program, and the West, but there are more developments on North Korea, its nukes, and the West also — more on that soon. Whereas Iran's nuclear program is in relatively early stages, North Korea's is more advanced (remember the missile tests?) and they are less economically lucky as Iran, meaning they are more dangerous with nukes, using them as leverage and selling technology to harmful forces (terrorists, rogue states, etc.). Iran, on the other hand, has less of an authoritarian government as North Korea, does have something to loose, has wealth, its oil, and other factors making North Korea certainly more serious than Iran — at least on the nuclear weapons topic. Iran also has plenty of young people who probably do not want to be totally blocked off from the rest of the world, all North Korea has is a maniacal leader and millions of starving civilians.

It all comes down to: the world does not need a nuclear-armed Iran — or another nuclear power period — but it certainly doesn't need another Iraq catastrophe either, especially one spearheaded by the current US president's administration.

technorati tags: iran, iran+nuclear+program, iran+nukes, news, politics, ahmadinejad, north+korea, nukes, IAEA

Confusion swirls around N. Korean nuclear test(s); plus a recap

The North Korean nuclear test (background here and here): big (i.e. successful), small (i.e. possibly flawed), failed, not at all (i.e. faked or bad reporting)? The status of the test is pondered as yet another conundrum, the diplomatic action aspect, is also laboured over. Russia has now stepped into the arena, along with (mainly) the United States, China, Japan, and, to a certain extent, South Korea (which is also wanting to become part of the nuclear club now). Obviously, the United Nations Security Council is deliberating and, as usually, it is the nitty gritty that is holding up the conclusion of that actions are to be taken in the North Korea problem that is holding making the process less and less decisive [looking]. North Korea, in the mean time, has threatened the US with war.

While the UNSC and other bodies still have their doors closed and hands in the air at each other, Japan has proposed sanctions of its own towards North Korea. A problem also faced by nations cutting off aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian [Authority] government, the European Union said that sanctions should be at North Korea (i.e. the government), not the people. Unlike with the PA, it is even closer to impossible (if that) to aid the people but not the government in the reclusive, tightly-wound nation that is North Korea.

Into the mix is China, a fellow 'communist' state known as an ally to N. Korea, who is — to put it lightly — quite annoyed at its neighbour's behaviour.
Speaking of North Korea's neighbours, how about that South Korean diplomat (Ban Ki-Moon) being pretty much guaranteed as the next UN Secretary-General? Talk about irony.

And President Bush has the plan of... well, staying the same course. He does know that he has tried and is trying that in Iraq right? *Oh, wait, nothing bad is happening there...* One ironic quote from Bush: "I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures", once again I give you Iraq and the lack of diplomatic process taken in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

Not to be an Iraq-Bush maniac, but he had yet another ironic quote, that North Korea is a "threat to international peace". What have you done that has been more than a 'threat to international peace', Mr. President? (Hint: Iraq and related 'war on terror' sprees). Bush has been saying much monologue (rhetoric) today, stating that there will be "serious repercussions" for the alleged North Korean nuclear test.

Also, current UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wants there to be dialogue between N. Korea and the rest. And France has said that the test failed (see first paragraph).

This issue will be tough — on multiple levels — to solve. Well, former US President Jimmy Carter has a plan.

technorati tags: north+korea, korea, bush, george+bush, president, us, USA, united+states, un, united+nations, kofi+annan, annan, secretary, general, secreatry-general, secretary+general, iraq, international, politics, news, world, war+on+terror, rhetoric, china, japan, n+korea, nuke, missile, nuclear, test, jimmy+carter, quote, south+korea, japan, sanctions, war, EU, european+union, palestine, PA, hamas, aid, communist, security+council, UNSC, russia, japan, ban, ban+ki-moon, secretary-general