Iran fuel imports nosedive as sanctions bite: source

July 26, 2010

Reuters

Only three cargoes of gasoline have so far reached Iran in July, according to a shipping document seen by Reuters, much less than the seasonal norm, as new sanctions cause ships carrying fuel to be diverted.

A series of new sanctions agreed since June specifically targets Iran's oil trade and industry, making it even harder to do business with the Islamic Republic. The EU adopted formally its latest measures on Monday.

Iran is the world's fifth largest crude exporter, but has to import around 40 percent of its gasoline needs because domestic refining capacity is inadequate.

Traditionally during the summer holiday driving season, Iran needs 11-13 cargoes a month, a Dubai-based trader told Reuters.

The document seen by Reuters showed only three cargoes of gasoline had arrived this month and were supplied by Turkish refiner Tupras and Unipec, the trading arm of China's Sinopec.

The companies were not immediately available to comment.

Another cargo is expected to arrive from Venezuela at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, two Gulf-based traders said.

They were not aware any other cargoes were heading to Iran.

"The new rounds of sanctions are making things hard right now, and many ships are being diverted, so Iran is only getting a fraction of its actual summer demand," said a trader.

Earlier this month the owner of a gasoline tanker refused to allow the vessel to sail to Iran from Turkey.

"Owners of ships are really worried right now about sending shipments toIran and that's why Iran is looking for alternative companies and countries to import from," said a Gulf-based trader.

As the pressure has mounted on Iran, the insurance market Lloyd's of London said it would not insure or reinsure petroleum shipments going into Iran.

Lloyd's, which has 15 to 20 percent of the global marine insurance sector, is seen as a major influence on other insurance markets with more players pulling back from offering cover to Iran.

Major shipping associations have also created clauses in contracts that enable ship owners to refuse to deliver refined petroleum cargoes to Iran.

ADAPTING TO CHANGE

Industry sources and analysts have anticipated some of Iran's traditional suppliers, such as China and Turkey, would stay loyal.

Venezuela, although very distant, making shipments costly, is also regarded as natural ally.

Iran can also adapt by upgrading its refining capacity, although this requires time and investment. For the shorter term, Iran can reduce the quotas of gasoline available at fully subsidized prices to curb demand.

The Iranian oil ministry has already said demand is on a falling trend. In June, it said average consumption since March had been 63.1 million liters, down 2.7 percent year-on-year.

Its website also said total daily production was 45 million liters, meaning about 18 million liters needed to be imported each day.

Standard gasoline cargoes are 33,000 tonnes or around 45 million liters, traders said, so one would provide around 2-1/2 days of import needs.

Other strategies for plugging the gap include smuggling refined products by land.

Trucks filled with fuel have managed to find a way into Iran despite a pledge by Iraqi Kurdistan to crack down on smuggling activities.

Asked about gasoline imports, an official from the National Iranian Oil Co. said on Monday there was "no sign of difficulties."

He also said crude exports were continuing to China and Europe.

For FACTBOX on Tactics adopted by Iran to overcome sanctions, please click on

(By Amena Bakr and Luke Pachymuthu Additional reporting by Barbara Lewis in Dubai, Robin Pomeroy in Tehran, Orhan Coskun Ankara and David Sheppard in London; editing by Keiron Henderson)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66P2X620100726

Iran says nuclear talks to resume with Brazil, Turkey

June 29, 2010

Reuters

Iran said on Tuesday it would soon resume nuclear talks with Turkey and Brazil -- a tentative first step back to international negotiations after Tehran was hit with a new wave of sanctions over its disputed nuclear work.

Iran has belittled the U.N., U.S. and European sanctions and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday he would return to long-frozen talks with world powers but on certain conditions only, and not before the end of August.

His foreign minister said talks would start before then with the two countries with which it agreed a nuclear fuel swap deal in May -- echoing a U.N.-brokered pact that Tehran backed out of late last year -- and which voted against the U.N. sanctions.

"There were some contacts with the foreign ministers of the three countries (Iran, Turkey and Brazil)," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference. "A joint meeting is on the agenda and we will announce it in the coming one or two days."

Iran has held no substantive talks with world powers since the deal in principle on the fuel swap struck with Russia, France and the United States in October.

The pact would have seen Iran sending 1.2 tons of low-enriched uranium (LEU) -- about 70 percent of its stockpile at the time -- abroad in exchange for specially processed fuel rods needed to keep the Tehran medical research reactor running.

In a turnabout, Iran agreed in talks in May with Brazil and Turkey to part with 1.2 tons of LEU. But by then Iran's LEU reserve had doubled in size, devaluing the swap's terms in Western eyes since it would no longer divest Iran of enough LEU to prevent its use for an atom bomb, if refined to high purity.

So the May agreement proved too little too late to prevent a new batch of punitive sanctions from the United Nations, European Union and United States.

Meanwhile, Iran has increased suspicions abroad by launching enrichment up to a level of 20 percent purity, asserting this will yield raw material for making the reactor fuel rods without foreign help -- but at the same time advancing much of the way down the road toward weapons-grade enrichment.

NEW IRANIAN CONDITIONS

Russia, which backed the U.S.-led push for further sanctions but has since complained about the United States and the European Union issuing stricter unilateral measures, said on Tuesday it wanted to get back to talks with Tehran.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he wanted talks between Iran, the United States, Russia and the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency focusing on providing Iran with reactor fuel rods so it would need to escalate enrichment itself.

"In the wake of the Brazilian and Turkish initiative, Russia, along with the United States, approached the director of the IAEA and proposed we arrange a meeting of technical experts from our three countries, including Iran, to discuss the possibility of supplying fuel for the experimental reactor in Iran, so that there will be no need for Iran to enrich the uranium to a level of 20 per cent," Lavrov said.

"I hope very much that Iran will respond positively and that this will help prevent the situation from deteriorating," he told reporters during a visit to Israel, which considers Iran's nuclear campaign an existential threat.

On Monday, Russia complained to the U.N. Security Council about what U.N. diplomats said was Germany's seizure of items bound for a nuclear power plant in Iran, saying such moves were "not in line" with U.N. rules.

On June 19, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that France was ready to talk with Iran at the IAEA "without delay," using the Tehran declaration by Iran, Brazil and Turkey as a starting point [ID:nPAB008398].

The West fears Iran's nuclear work is aimed at developing the means to build bombs because of its history of secrecy and restricting IAEA inspections. Tehran says it will be solely for generating electricity and isotopes for medicine and farming.

Ahmadinejad has called on the major powers to "clarify" three things before talks could resume: their attitude to Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal, their stance on commitments to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and whether they come to the table as Iran's friend or its enemy.

World powers were likely to dismiss such conditions as irrelevant to the main issue -- Iran's refusal to negotiate limits and transparency with respect to its nuclear activity.

"Somehow implying there's a linkage between the Iranian issue and the Israeli issue ... will certainly not make life easier," said a Western diplomat versed in the Iran issue.

"Saying that as a punishment that they only want talks in the third week of August -- this is posturing which we shouldn't take too seriously ... We need to wait for Iran's official response on the (swap) plan and the offer of talks from the EU."

(Additional reporting by Amie Ferris-Rotman in Moscow and Sylvia Westall in Vienna; Writing by Robin Pomeroy and Mark Heinrich; editing by Janet McBride)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65S31520100629

New sanctions could mean confrontation: Iran

June 02, 2010

AFP

BRUSSELS — Fresh international sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme could lead to confrontation, foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki warned during a visit to Brussels on Wednesday.
"There are two options," to resolve the problem, he told an audience at the European Policy Centre think-tank.
"The first is based on cooperation, the other is based on confrontation," he said on the second and last day of his visit to the Belgian capital.
"The resolution" at the United Nations Security Council on imposing new sanctions against Iran "is a basis for confrontation," he warned.
"That is not our preferred option but that's up to other parties who would like to move in that direction," Mottaki added.
Last month the United States introduced a draft resolution at the UN to impose tough new sanctions on Iran.
The draft resolution would expand an arms embargo and measures against Iran's banking sector and ban it from sensitive overseas activities like uranium mining and developing ballistic missiles, a US official said.
Western powers fear that Iran's atomic programme is a cover for a nuclear weapons drive.
Tehran denies this, saying the programme is aimed at peaceful energy use, which it insists it has the right to pursue.
Iran is already subject to three sets of UN sanctions for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, one of the crucial steps towards the production of nuclear energy for civil or military use.
Mottaki stressed that Iran had no intention of giving up its plans of enriching uranium to 20 percent.
Enrichment lies at the centre of international fears about Iran's nuclear programme as the process can make the core of an atom bomb in highly purified forms of over 90 percent.
"It's not against the law," said Mottaki, warning that a new UN resolution would "kill" a recent initiative with Brazil and Turkey
The two countries brokered a deal with Tehran last month under which Iran has committed to deposit 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enriched uranium in Turkey in return for reactor fuel.
But the deal drew a cool reaction from world powers led by the United States, which is pushing for the new sanctions to be agreed.
Western governments say the deal fails to address concerns about Iran's nuclear programme.
However, Mottaki made it clear that without that deal "definitely we'll continue our production of 20 percent."
On the other hand "if we do not need the 20 percent we won't move into that direction."

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jKj4lWsoUdY7heHwRDwoeEoBzwXQ

UN resolution will kill Turkey-Brazil deal on nuclear issue, warns Iran

June 2,2010

Were the United Nations Security Council to go ahead with new sanctions against Iran, the mediation pushed forward by Turkey and Brazil on the nuclear issue would fall through, Tehran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Wednesday.

Leaders of Turkey and Brazil came to Tehran in mid May to strike a deal that would see Iran transfer 1,200 kilograms of 3.5—per—cent enriched uranium to Turkey, in exchange for 120 kilograms of 20—per—cent enriched uranium destined for a medical research reactor.

“Moving through (the) Security Council a resolution will kill this initiative,” Mr. Mottaki said during an event in Brussels hosted by the European Policy Studies (EPC) think—tank.

The proposed swap would take place under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but has not convinced the United States and the European Union, which are still pushing for stronger sanctions at the UN.

Both fear the trilateral deal does not offer enough assurances against the threat of Iran using the enriched uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.

“There are two options: the first option is based on cooperation and confidence building, the other option is based on confrontation.

We do consider moving to a resolution in the Security Council as a base for confrontation,” Mr. Mottaki warned.

“That is not what we prefer, that is not our priority. But it’s up to the other parties who would like to move in that direction,” he added, without mentioning any particular country.

But the foreign minister said that Iran might go ahead with domestic production of enriched uranium even if the uranium swap deal went ahead.

“When we receive our 20—per—cent—enriched uranium ... then we will decide — that is our decision — (whether) it is feasible to find 20—per—cent uranium through exchange or buying or producing. That is our decision,” he stressed.

Still, Mr. Mottaki said he was “optimistic” about the success of the Brazil—Turkey deal, claiming that his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, told him in a telephone conversation on Sunday that he supported the proposal.

Russia is one of the five permanent UN Security Council members that has been dealing with the Iranian nuclear programme in the “5+1” Group. The other countries are the United States, China, France, Britain and Germany.

The EU conducted negotiations with Tehran on behalf of the group, but talks have been going nowhere for years.

During his trip to Brussels Mr. Mottaki had a closed door meeting on Tuesday in the European Parliament, a body which has no say on EU foreign policy. No meetings were foreseen with the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton.

Source: http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article444565.ece

Turkey seeks U.S. support vs Israel on flotilla

June 01, 2010

Reuters

WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - Turkey on Tuesday pressed for stronger U.S. support after Israel's raid on a Turkish-backed aid flotilla, saying the crisis could hit U.S. hopes for Middle East peace amid worsening tensions over Iran's nuclear program.


Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, in Washington for talks with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said Ankara wanted a clear U.S. condemnation of Monday's raid after Israeli forces killed nine people, including four Turks, while trying to stop a convoy of vessels delivering aid to the Gaza Strip.

"Some of our allies are not ready to condemn the Israeli actions," Davutoglu said.
He said he was disappointed with Washington's cautious response to an incident he likened to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

"Psychologically this attack is like 9-11 for Turkey because Turkish citizens were attacked by a state, not by terrorists, with an intention, a clear decision of political leaders of that state," he said.


"We expect full solidarity with us. It should not be a choice between Turkey and Israel. It should be a choice between right and wrong."

International fury over the flotilla attack has created a tough balancing act for the Obama administration, particularly with Turkey, a key NATO ally seen by Washington as a secular Muslim power that can counter Islamic militancy in the region.

Both Turkey and Israel, the United States' closest Middle East ally, are pivotal players on peace in the region and the impasse over Iran's nuclear program. A rupture in relations between the two could badly complicate U.S. foreign policy.

MEDIATION ON HOLD
Davutoglu said he had planned to discuss relaunching indirect Israeli-Syrian peace talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but that the initiative was now on hold. Netanyahu scrapped his own planned Tuesday visit to Washington after the crisis erupted.

"We were planning to have meetings to discuss a regional peace plan," Davutoglu told reporters at a briefing. "But they (Israeli officials) didn't respect the rights of individuals and they didn't respond to our efforts to restore our relations and to restart Israeli-Syrian indirect talks.

"If they don't act, how can we convince Syria or other countries in the region that they want peace?"


The United Nations has called for an impartial investigation into what happened as Israeli forces boarded the ship where the killings occurred, and Davutoglu said he would seek U.S. support for an immediate and unconditional release of all those detained in the raid.

Turkey also will raise the issue with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization because the incident was an attack on citizens of a NATO country by a non-NATO state, he said.

The United States and Turkey already were at odds over Iran, with Turkey and Brazil pushing a new proposed atomic fuel deal for Tehran as a diplomatic alternative to the tough U.N. sanctions that Washington wants.

The United States has rejected the proposal as too little, too late and says the measure does not address core concerns that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program is purely peaceful.

Davutoglu said on Tuesday the proposed fuel deal would be a confidence-building measure that could lead to further discussions on Iran's nuclear plans, and rejected suggestions that Turkey and Brazil were helping Tehran to delay U.N. action on sanctions.

"This is not defending Iran," he said. "This is defending regional peace, global peace, and the national interests of Turkey."
By Andrew Quinn, Editing by Bill Trott
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN01115314

Why is the West sceptical about Iran's fuel offer?

By Sylvia Westall

Reuters - Iran has outlined a plan to the U.N. atomic watchdog under which it would give up some of its nuclear material but diplomats say the gesture would have no effect on a push to widen sanctions against Tehran.

Under the plan agreed with Brazil and Turkey last week, Iran would transfer 1,200 kg (2,646 lb) of its low-enriched uranium -- enough for an atomic bomb if enriched to higher levels -- to Turkey within a month.

A year later the Islamic Republic would get special nuclear fuel rods for a medical research reactor which makes isotopes to help treat cancer patients.

Why is the West cautious about this proposal?

TIME LAPSE

Western officials say the landscape has changed in the seven months since they brokered a similar plan with Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a way to ease tensions over Tehran's atomic work.

Iran has continued enriching uranium and taking away 1,200 kg now would still leave Iran with enough for a bomb if it wanted to build one. Tehran says it has no intention of doing this and says its work is for peaceful purposes only.

Some observers say the swap is still worth it because it would remove half the material. Others say the deal has now lost its value because the bomb risk would remain and it fails to build confidence.

HIGHER ENRICHMENT

Iran also started enriching uranium to higher levels in February, saying it wanted to make fuel for the reactor itself, but the move unsettled Western powers because it takes the material closer to the grade needed for atomic weapons.

Tehran said it took the step because it said it was tired of waiting for the original deal to be agreed. Western officials say it was Iran which stalled progress, with a series of new conditions for the swap which it knew would not be accepted.

Iran has vowed that it will not stop its higher enrichment, even if the fuel supply agreement goes through and has started setting up more equipment for it.

Western diplomats have described this refusal to halt higher enrichment as a likely deal-breaker. They also question why Iran would still need to continue this process -- which like its lower-grade enrichment violates U.N. sanctions -- when countries are prepared to give it the fuel rods it says it needs.

They say Iran lacks the capability to make the specialized fuel assemblies in the short-term, so it makes no sense to produce more highly enriched uranium for a reactor that Tehran says will run out of fuel by the end of the year.

LACK OF DETAILS

Unlike the IAEA plan, brokered by former IAEA-chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the new proposal does not included detail on who would make the fuel rods, who will pay for the process and what will happen to the low-enriched uranium stored in Turkey after the swap has been completed, Western officials say.

Without this sort of information, they say they cannot begin serious negotiations on Iran's offer, which many of them see as an attempt to stall sanctions negotiations.

Some Western officials say the Iranian move fits into a familiar pattern of Tehran offering concessions when punitive measures loom.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

Diplomats also say that with its promotion of the new proposal, Iran is trying to give the impression that it was the fuel deal which was at the centre of problems with the West, rather than its nuclear ambitions as a whole.

They acknowledge that the original IAEA-plan was always intended as a first step towards resolving the nuclear issue, not a solution.

But they say Iran's lack of cooperation with the agency on questions about its atomic programme and its delay in engaging on the fuel deal, have left negotiators feeling wary.

They also fear that Iran may go back on its word.

Talks over the original deal suffered from internal Iranian disputes. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad first appeared to favour the U.N. deal as a way to shore up his own power.

But he faced stiff opposition from rivals who did not want to see him reap credit for a breakthrough. Some voiced misgivings about parting with the nuclear material, which is seen as a strategic asset.

But analysts in Iran believe Ahmadinejad wouldn't have agreed on this deal without the blessing of the supreme leader.

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48881820100528

ANALYSIS - Ahmadinejad loses cool with Russia over sanctions

May 28, 2010

Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent

Reuters - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never shied away from lambasting Iran's foes. Now he has alienated Russia, which has long helped delay or dilute U.N. sanctions aimed at the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme.

The row between Moscow and Tehran reflects long-simmering tensions that came to the boil on Wednesday when Ahmadinejad berated Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for buckling under what he said was U.S. pressure for fresh sanctions.

The Kremlin swiftly chastised the Iranian leader for "political demagoguery" and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday described Ahmadinejad's tirade as "emotional".

He said Iran had for years failed to respond to Moscow's efforts to resolve the dispute over nuclear work seen by the West as having military purposes, a charge Tehran denies.

"Things have been turning sour for a while," said Ali Ansari, an Iran expert at Scotland's St Andrews University, who suggested that Russia was piqued by Iran's acceptance this month of a nuclear fuel swap deal proposed by Turkey and Brazil -- although Lavrov said it would be a breakthrough if implemented.

"If the deal was do-able now, why not back in October when it would actually have meant something in terms of Iran's enriched uranium stocks?" Ansari asked.

Russia and other world powers backed a fuel swap proposal drawn up by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last year after Iran declared it needed fuel for a Tehran research reactor with medical uses. Iran effectively rejected the idea.

Responding to word of last week's deal with Turkey and Brazil, Medvedev said a key question was whether Iran intended to continue enriching uranium.

Tehran has since vowed to do so, removing, in Moscow's view, the main rationale for the fuel swap and perhaps convincing the Kremlin that Iran's only motive is to play for time.

Baqer Moin, a London-based analyst, said it was unclear if Ahmadinejad's outburst had the backing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on nuclear policy.

"The Russians don't take Ahmadinejad that seriously," he said, recalling that when Vladimir Putin visited Tehran as Russian president in 2007 he first held talks with Khamenei.

"But if it was not just an off-the-cuff remark -- and if what is coming from the Russians reflects the Russian state -- then it is a major development in the relationship," Moin said.

"It's a bad sign for Iran because they badly needed Russian influence if not to veto, at least to modify, the (U.N. sanctions) resolution as they have done before."

RUSSIA WARMING TO SANCTIONS?

The United States said last week that Russia and China, which have both resisted sanctions against Iran in the past, had agreed to a draft resolution for further punitive U.N. measures.

Ahmadinejad has long taken a defiant line on the nuclear issue, viewed by many Iranians as a matter of national pride. But he initially supported the IAEA's proposal which called for Iran to ship 1.2 tonnes of low-enriched uranium abroad in return for specially processed fuel for its medical isotope reactor.

He then backed away under fire from conservative and reformist critics at home -- only to seal a similar deal with Turkey and Brazil last week. Ahmadinejad called it a "historic opportunity" which U.S. President Barack Obama should seize.

Western leaders said it was a ploy to avert sanctions and failed to allay their fears because Iran had pledged to go on enriching uranium and even if part of its stockpile went to Turkey it would still have enough fuel for one nuclear warhead.

Mahjoob Zweiri, a Qatar-based academic, said Ahmadinejad must have gained high-level backing for the Turkey-Brazil deal.

"He was reflecting the outcome of an internal debate that took place maybe last week," he said. "In one way or another he had a kind of understanding that this deal will be supported."

Zweiri said Iran had not expected Russia to swing behind the West on sanctions. It was already aggrieved at delays to the start-up of a Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr and uncertainty over an order for Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, which could protect Iranian nuclear sites from attack.

The spat between two of the world's biggest energy producers is among their worst since the Cold War.

Though trade ties have grown over the past two decades, Russia is still regarded with deep distrust in Iran after several wars between Persia and the Tsarist Empire, followed by rocky relations with the atheist Soviet Union.

Moin, the London-based analyst, said it was unlikely that either side wanted a real rift, but if tensions between Russia and the Islamic Republic persisted, other issues could surface.

"So far the Iranians have been silent on Chechnya," he said, referring to Russia's violent struggles with Islamist militants in its mainly Muslim-populated Caucasus republic.

"At the end of the day, Russia is weighing its international interests with the West and Iran -- and obviously choosing the West when the crunch comes," Moin said.

(Additional reporting by Dmitry Solovyov in Moscow; Editing by Dominic Evans)

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48850420100527

As Ugly as It Gets

May 25, 2010

The New York Times

I confess that when I first saw the May 17 picture of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, joining his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with raised arms — after their signing of a putative deal to defuse the crisis over Iran’s nuclear weapons program — all I could think of was: Is there anything uglier than watching democrats sell out other democrats to a Holocaust-denying, vote-stealing Iranian thug just to tweak the U.S. and show that they, too, can play at the big power table? 


No, that’s about as ugly as it gets.

“For years, nonaligned and developing countries have faulted America for cynically pursuing its own interests without regard for human rights,” observed Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment. “As Turkey and Brazil aspire to play on the global stage, they’re going to face the same criticisms they once doled out. Lula and Erdogan’s visit to Iran came just days after Iran executed five political prisoners who were tortured into confessions. They warmly embraced Ahmadinejad as their brother, but didn’t mention a word about human rights. There seems to be a mistaken assumption that the Palestinians are the only people that seek justice in the Middle East, and if you just invoke their cause you can coddle the likes of Ahmadinejad.”

Turkey and Brazil are both nascent democracies that have overcome their own histories of military rule. For their leaders to embrace and strengthen an Iranian president who uses his army and police to crush and kill Iranian democrats — people seeking the same freedom of speech and political choice that Turks and Brazilians now enjoy — is shameful.

“Lula is a political giant, but morally he has been a deep disappointment,” said Moisés Naím, editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine and a former trade minister in Venezuela.

Lula, Naím noted, “has supported the thwarting of democracy across Latin America.” He regularly praises Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro, the Cuban dictator — and now Ahmadinejad — while denouncing Colombia, one of the great democratic success stories, because it let U.S. planes use Colombian airfields to fight narco-traffickers. “Lula has been great for Brazil but terrible for his democratic neighbors,” said Naím. Lula, who rose to prominence as a progressive labor leader in Brazil, has turned his back on the violently repressed labor leaders of Iran.

Sure, had Brazil and Turkey actually persuaded the Iranians to verifiably end their whole suspected nuclear weapons program, America would have endorsed it. But that is not what happened.

Iran today has about 4,850 pounds of low-enriched uranium. Under the May 17 deal, it has supposedly agreed to send some 2,640 pounds from its stockpile to Turkey for conversion into the type of nuclear fuel needed to power Tehran’s medical reactor — a fuel that cannot be used for a bomb. But that would still leave Iran with a roughly 2,200-pound uranium stockpile, which it still refuses to put under international inspection and is free to augment and continue to reprocess to the higher levels needed for a bomb. Experts say it would only take months for Iran to again amass sufficient quantity for a nuclear weapon.

So what this deal really does is what Iran wanted it to do: weaken the global coalition to pressure Iran to open its nuclear facilities to U.N. inspectors, and, as a special bonus, legitimize Ahmadinejad on the anniversary of his crushing the Iranian democracy movement that was demanding a recount of Iran’s tainted June 2009 elections.

In my view, the “Green Revolution” in Iran is the most important, self-generated, democracy movement to appear in the Middle East in decades. It has been suppressed, but it is not going away, and, ultimately, its success — not any nuclear deal with the Iranian clerics — is the only sustainable source of security and stability. We have spent far too little time and energy nurturing that democratic trend and far too much chasing a nuclear deal.

As Abbas Milani, an Iran expert at Standford University, put it to me: “The only long-term solution to the impasse is for a more democratic, responsible, transparent regime in Tehran. It has been, in my view, a great con game successfully played by the clerical regime to make the nuclear issue the almost sole focal point of its relations with the U.S. and the West. The West should have always followed a two-track policy: earnest negotiations on the nuclear issue and no less earnest discussion on the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran.”

I’d prefer that Iran never get a bomb. The world would be much safer without more nukes, especially in the Middle East. But if Iran does go nuclear, it makes a huge difference whether a democratic Iran has its finger on the trigger or this current murderous clerical dictatorship. Anyone working to delay that and to foster real democracy in Iran is on the side of the angels. Anyone who enables this tyrannical regime and gives cover for its nuclear mischief will one day have to answer to the Iranian people.

By Thomas L. Friedman
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/opinion/26friedman.html

Recon for attack a warning to Iran

May 26, 2010

The Jerusalem Post

Reports that the Pentagon has okayed reconnaissance missions over Iran were seen in Jerusalem on Tuesday as the first public signs of practical preparations for a possible US military operation against Iran. The New York Times reported on Monday that Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in the Middle East, ordered an expansion of clandestine military activity in the region. According to the report, “officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.”
The article continued that the seven-page directive “appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive.”

Although it is obvious that the Pentagon has contingency plans for all possible scenarios, one Israeli official said this was “the first time that the public is getting word of practical preparations of military activity.”

The official said that if this was a deliberate leak, then it was clearly an attempt to send a tough message to the Iranians that, indeed, no options – as the US has been saying for months – have been taken off the table.

And even if this were not a deliberate leak, the official added, the impression the information would have on Teheran would still be the same.

Also on Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil last week whereby Iran would transfer 1,200 kilos of low-enriched uranium abroad was “a transparent Iranian ruse meant to divert the international public’s attention from sanctions.”

Addressing the assembled MKs, Netanyahu said the deal, which drew mixed responses from the permanent UN Security Council members and in particular the US, would still leave enough uranium in Iran’s possession to produce a nuclear weapon

“This proposal also guarantees Iran the right to take back at any point the kilograms [of uranium] transferred to Turkey,” the prime minister said, praising Washington for deciding to press forward in its pursuit of a fourth round of Security Council sanctions.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu said that while important symbolically, “I think we all know these sanctions will not stop Iran.”

The prime minister said that “more effective sanctions are being prepared now by the US Congress. They will affect, among other things, the energy sector, imports, exports and other areas. The US will be able to pass these sanctions outside the Security Council or in conjunction with it.”

Teheran, Netanyahu said, must “understand that the international community is determined to prevent it from acquiring nuclear arms.”  

By Herb Keinon

Source: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=176483

Diplomat says Iran deal flawed

May 25, 2010

ASSOCIATED PRESS AND JPOST.COM STAFF

A Western diplomat speaking anonymously has referred to the proposed uranium fuel agreement between Iran, Turkey and Brazil as technically flawed.

AFP is reporting that the diplomat said, "Getting this fuel in one year is impossible. It takes at least one and a half years to have this." He added, "There is something tricky there, but we will see in a year. It is still too early."

The anonymous diplomat's comments came after Iran formally submitted the fuel swap deal to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday.

Seeking to evade new UN sanctions, Iran submitted its plan on Monday to swap some of its enriched uranium for reactor fuel and said the onus was on world powers to defuse tensions by accepting the deal.

The proposal, which was shared with The Associated Press, did not go beyond generalities already outlined last week. Thus, it was unlikely to deter the US, Russia, China, Britain and France — the five permanent UN Security Council members — which have agreed on a draft fourth set of sanctions against Iran for refusing to give up uranium enrichment.

The deal would commit Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, Iran would receive, within one year, higher-enriched fuel rods to be used in a US-built medical research reactor.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=176405

Final week of UN nuclear conference has eyes on Iran

May 25, 2010

Agence France-Presse

UNITED NATIONS--A landmark UN conference on fighting the spread of nuclear weapons opened its final week Monday with eyes on Iran's efforts to avoid fresh UN sanctions against its nuclear program.

Iran is seen as a test case for the 189-nation Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as it claims its nuclear work is peaceful but is under three rounds of UN sanctions to get it to rein in its nuclear program over fears it seeks the bomb.

The NPT conference here was still struggling to formulate a draft final statement, three weeks after opening on May 3.

Committees met Monday on the three pillars of the NPT -- disarmament, monitoring nuclear programs worldwide to make sure they are not used to make weapons, and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The conference is to finalize a draft final statement later Monday and begin a last run of plenary sessions on Tuesday. It closes Friday.

In an effort to avoid new sanctions, Iran struck a last-minute deal with Brazil and Turkey last week on a nuclear fuel swap.

In Vienna Monday, Iran formally notified the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency of this deal.

The bargain is for Iran to ship half of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country in return for higher grade reactor fuel to be supplied by Russia and France.

When the deal was first offered by the IAEA in October, Iran had less of a stockpile of LEU and would have been shipping out two-thirds of the stockpile.

The US had backed the move in order to guarantee that Iran would not have enough uranium on hand to process further for a first bomb.

Iran would still be left at this point with less than it would need to make a bomb. It has promised to ship out 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of LEU to Turkey in return for the fuel for a research reactor making medical isotopes.

But Western governments say Iran is still not addressing international concerns about its nuclear program.

And a Western diplomat said Monday that the uranium deal has a key technical flaw as it fails to allocate enough time to make the fuel.

¨Getting this fuel in one year is impossible. It takes at least one and a half years to have this,¨ the diplomat told reporters.

He said that might mean Iran could after one year take its low enriched uranium back ¨and then wait for the fuel to come six months later... There is something tricky there.¨

Washington has pressed ahead at the UN Security Council by circulating a new sanctions resolution.

The to-and-fro over Iran has dominated the conference, even if US President Barack Obama's moves towards disarmament, such as a new strategic weapons agreement with Russia, have given Washington increased credibility.

Non-proliferation analyst Rebecca Johnson said "the review conference has a real chance of being able to adopt a constructively useful -- if not fabulously forward-looking) -- outcome."

Sticking points include whether to set a deadline for disarmament, something nuclear weapons state resist and which is almost certain not to be in any final document.

Another thorny matter is an Egyptian-led proposal to set up a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

US and Egyptian officials have been meeting on this for almost two months and will be seeking a compromise in New York that would allow Israel to take part.

Israel is not against such a zone but says it can only come after a peace agreement for the region.

Egypt is promoting the zone, however, as a way to move towards peace, especially since Israel is allegedly the only nuclear weapons state in the Middle East.

Other major areas of dispute at the NPT conference are whether to make tougher nuclear inspections mandatory for all member states and how to penalize states, such as North Korea, that withdraw from the treaty in order to make the bomb.

The NPT, which went into effect in 1970, is in crisis over these issues.

The previous NPT review in 2005 failed to reach agreement but the atmosphere has been better this time around in the twice-a-decade meetings.

Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100525-271973/Final-week-of-UN-nuclear-conference-has-eyes-on-Iran

Iran ready for new chapter of co-operation' - UN envoy

May 25, 2010

Barbara Plett

BBC UN correspondent

Iran says its nuclear fuel deal proves it is ready to open a new chapter of cooperation with the West. In an interview Tehran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) urged the UN Security Council to respond positively. Ali Asghar Soltanieh was speaking to the BBC on the day that Iran officially outlined the details of the fuel exchange to the the UN's nuclear watchdog.

So far Western powers have said the agreement is too little too late, and are pursuing sanctions against the Islamic state.

Removing stockpile
The fuel swap was first proposed last October as a confidence building measure by the IAEA along with America, France and Russia (the so-called Vienna Group) on behalf of six world powers who believe Iran's trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

The West suspects Iran would have nuclear material left over. It involves exchanging 1,200 kilograms of Iran's low enriched uranium for special nuclear fuel rods needed to power its medical research reactor. For the six powers the advantage was in removing Tehran's stockpile of fissile material, thus slowing down any possible moves to build a bomb.

Iran sought amendments for eight months and then finally agreed to the transfer, following a high level intervention from Turkey and Brazil. The new element is that the low enriched uranium (LEU) would be deposited in Turkey as a guarantee that Iran would get the promised fuel rods.

'Maximum concession'

"We are not sure unless this fuel is in the core of the reactor that such a thing will actually happen," Mr Soltanieh said, indicating that deep suspicions linger from America's failure to honour nuclear contracts after the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Once the rods materialise, the LEU "deposit" will go to whichever state supplies the uranium to make them, possibly Russia, he said. He called this a "maximum concession" and urged the Vienna Group to "seize this unique opportunity" to negotiate the technical details of the deal.

"I'm sure if they will take the right course of action and change gear from confrontations, resolutions and sanctions…then I think we will open a new chapter of cooperation," he said.

Western suspicions

But Western states say the exchange has lost its value as a confidence-building measure, because Tehran's stockpile of fissile material has expanded since October, and because it decided in February to escalate uranium enrichment to 20%.

They've tabled a draft sanctions resolution in the Security Council, and see the fuel deal as a manoeuvre by Iran to avoid the tougher measures.

The core issue, say Western diplomats, is that Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of United Nations resolutions.

They point to IAEA statements that Iran's lack of cooperation prevents the agency from confirming Tehran's intentions are entirely peaceful, as claimed. Mr Soltanieh made clear that suspending enrichment was a non-starter.

Such UN resolutions are "not possible, not implementable," he said, fiercely defending what he said was Iran's right as a member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to produce nuclear fuel, and suggesting that the Iranian government might reconsider the exchange deal if the Security Council eventually votes for sanctions.

He urged instead that both sides "open a new avenue for mutual confidence building," noting that "there's been a serious trust deficit for the last 30 years".

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10151507.stm

Text of Iran letter on nuclear fuel swap offer

May 24, 2010

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran notified the U.N. nuclear watchdog in writing on Monday that it accepted a plan to part with 1.2 tonnes of its low-enriched uranium in exchange for special nuclear fuel to run its medical research reactor.

Following is the main text of a letter from Iranian nuclear energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi to International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya Amano summarizing Iran's position on the deal it reached last week with the help of Turkey and Brazil.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran, as an active member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has always been committed to its obligations under the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and has had wide-ranging cooperation with the IAEA.

"Such cooperation and extended interaction with the agency is an indication of the importance attached to this international organ and the attention devoted to the significance of the NPT.

"Reciprocally, the Islamic Republic of Iran expects that the inalienable rights enshrined in the IAEA Statute and the Article IV of the NPT, as well as the statutory mandate of the agency in providing services to the member states, be recognised and respected, and as a result to benefit from such assistance and services of the agency without discrimination.

"The supply of the fuel for Tehran Research Reactor is among the issues which certainly fit within the framework of the agency's statutory function, and the responsibility of the agency in this respect is crystal clear.

"Regretfully, despite the elapse of about one year since the submission of the request by the Islamic Republic of Iran (2 June 2009) for fuel supply for Tehran Research Reactor, (which is) devoted to produc(ing) radioisotopes for medical purposes and providing medical services to about one million people, not only has the fuel not been delivered to my country, but the pursued path in this regard has faced stalemate due to unjustified conditions imposed by other parties.

"At this juncture, I seize this opportunity to announce that in the course of the recent trilateral summit meeting held in Tehran with the presence of the presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Federative Republic of Brazil as well as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey --...the latter two countries at present happen to be members of the Board of Governors of the IAEA -- we had constructive talks with respect to nuclear cooperation leading to the 'Joint Declaration by Iran, Turkey and Brazil on 17 May 2010'.

"I, hereby officially present to Your Excellency a copy of the Joint Declaration. The Islamic Republic of Iran reconfirms its agreement with the content of the Joint Declaration and its individual interrelated paragraphs, each bearing a particular importance of its own.

"In order to implement the Joint Declaration, in accordance with its Paragraph 6, the Islamic Republic of Iran hereby officially declares its agreement with the content of the Declaration, in particular with its first five paragraphs as follows:

"1. We reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in accordance with the related articles of the NPT, recall the right of all state parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination.

"2. We express our strong conviction that we have the opportunity now to begin a forward-looking process that will create a positive, constructive, non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.

"3. We believe that the nuclear fuel exchange is instrumental in initiating cooperation in different areas, especially with regard to peaceful nuclear cooperation including nuclear power plant and research reactor construction.

"4. Based on this point, the nuclear fuel exchange is a starting point to begin cooperation and a positive constructive move forward among nations. Such a move should lead to positive interaction and cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, replacing and avoiding all kinds of confrontation through refraining from measures, actions and rhetorical statements that would jeopardize Iran's rights and obligations under the NPT.

"5. Based on the above, in order to facilitate the nuclear cooperation mentioned above, the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to deposit 1200 kg LEU in Turkey. While in Turkey the LEU will continue to be the property of Iran. Iran and the IAEA may station observers to monitor the safekeeping of the LEU in Turkey.

"In return, we expect the Agency, also in accordance with paragraph 6 of this declaration, to notify the Vienna Group (USA, Russia, France and the IAEA) of its content, and consequently inform us of the Group's positive response.

"Such action, according to this declaration, will pave the wave to commence negotiation for elaboration on further details of the exchange leading to conclusion of a written agreement and as well as making proper arrangements between Iran and the Vienna Group.

"We look forward to receive Your Excellency's response in an expedited way.

(Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N3FA20100524