New Report Outlines Recommendations for Next U.S. President

A new report entitled “Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development” has just been published by the National Security Initiative of the Bipartisan Security Center. The task force was co-chaired by Ambassador Daniel Coats and former Senator Charles Robb (VA). Other task force members included Ashton Carter, Admiral Gregory Johnson (U.S. Navy, Ret.), General Ronald Keys (Ret.), Dennis Ross, Henry Sokolski, and Steve Rademaker, among others. Kenneth Katzman and Micahel Rubin served as consultants to the project and Michael Rubin is credited as the primary drafter of the report.

The report concludes that a new and comprehensive diplomatic strategy, with calibrated financial and military leverage, will be the next administration’s best option. While the report says its seeks a diplomatic solution to the Iranian challenge, involving direct engagement between the U.S. and Iran, it says such engagement should only be done under the right conditions, and the U.S. should only enter diplomatic relations from a position of strength. Furthermore, if diplomacy fails, the next president might have to turn to “less optimal solutions,” including military action, if diplomacy fails within a reasonable timeframe. It says that “while a ‘grand bargain’ resolving all issues between Washington and Tehran would be an attractive outcome, the United States does not have the luxury of time given the intractability of issues and the Iranian government’s decision to accelerate its nuclear program.”

The report warns that opening dialogue with Iran without preconditions could backfire, and the U.S. should limit talks with Iran to a predetermined time period. It states, “Any formal dialogue with Iran absent suspension of enrichment could backfire: Not only would the United States implicitly void all UN Security Council resolutions demanding a cessation of Iranian uranium enrichment, but Iranian authorities are likely to interpret U.S. flexibility as acquiescence to the Iranian position that it must be permitted to enrich—all the more reason to increase multilateral sanctions as any new incentives are contemplated.”

The report also states that the “Europeans make war with Iran more likely if they do not strengthen sanctions against Iran and effectively end all commercial relations.” It calls on the next President to “clarify to the Europeans that only by standing firmly together diplomatically and ratcheting up the pressure on the Islamic Republic can we improve the chance to avoid more robust action.”

The report calls for ramping up sanctions and closing existing loopholes in current U.S. and United Nations sanctions. According to the report: “The U.S. Treasury Department’s quiet diplomacy with European banks should continue. Many European banks and companies have stepped back from operations in Iran when confronted with evidence of the Islamic Republic’s deceptive financial practices. Washington should press for expansion of sanctions upon Iran’s banking sector. Even without European acquiescence, the next occupant of the Oval Office should consider applying Section 311 of the U.S.A Patriot Act to designate additional Iranian banks up to and including Bank Markazi, the central bank, because of their involvement in deceptive financial practices. Such action would, in effect, remove Iranian banks from the international financial stage. Negotiations could commence immediately to achieve greater transparency in Iranian financial dealings.”

The report also address the possibility of using a blockade of Iranian gasoline imports if diplomacy should fail. According to the report, “Some have proposed an embargo of gasoline exports to Iran but, in practice, there are too many suppliers to enforce fully without a blockade. However, even a partially effective embargo might have a psychological impact on the Iranian people, representing a cost for the Iranian leaders. An actual blockade of Iranian gasoline imports would have a much greater impact since, despite rationing, the Islamic Republic still must import about 25 percent of its refined petroleum needs, the majority of which enters Iran through sea ports. The Iranian regime feels vulnerable about its stability and a tighter rationing of gasoline or a spike in gasoline prices would likely spark further social discontent and political upheaval.” If blockading imports should fail, the U.S. should then blockade exports, an action the report views as a final sanction before military action.

The report recommends an “information campaign” to accompany all diplomatic and sanctions efforts, calling for increases in funding for Voice of America and Radio Farda. The report cautions, It is not the place of Washington to support any political groupings outside Iran or ethnic interests inside the country. However, the next president should recognize the importance of an independent civil society and trade union movement inside Iran and encourage their growth through any appropriate means.” The report does not elaborate what those means are.

Finally, the report concludes that military action is “a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear development, even if it is unlikely to solve all our challenges and will certainly create new ones.” The report acknowledges risks inherent in the military option saying, “Military action against the Islamic Republic would incur significant risks, whether such action involves a limited air strike or a more sustained air and naval campaign such as the imposition of no-fly zones and a full blockade. Any military action would run the risk of significant U.S. and allied losses, rallying Iranians around an unstable and ideologically extreme regime, triggering wide-scale Hezbollah and Hamas rocket attacks against Israel, and producing unrest in a number of the Persian Gulf states. An initial air campaign would likely last several days to several weeks and target both key military and nuclear installations. It should not target civilian facilities, and might not require ground troops beyond Special Forces. While a successful bombing campaign would retard Iranian nuclear development, Iran would undoubtedly retain its nuclear knowhow. It would also require years of continued vigilance, both to strike previously undiscovered nuclear sites and to ensure that Iran does not resurrect its military nuclear program… A military strike would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”

The report concludes, “It may be too late to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power state, but it is not too late to prevent the Islamic Republic from becoming a nuclear weapons threat.”

Download the full report here.

House Committee Misdirects Debate on Proliferation Prevention Initiative

Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman testified today in a hastily scheduled hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee to explore diversion of funds under the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP). After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, many scientists and engineers with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) knowledge and expertise suffered significant cuts in pay or lost their government-supported work. The U.S. was concerned these scientists might sell their expertise to terrorists or countries of concern and established the IPP program under the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1994.

The efficacy of the program has been increasingly criticized and was the subject of a January 23, 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled “Nuclear Nonproliferation: DOE Needs to Reassess Its Program to Assist Weapons Scientists in Russia and Other Countries.” The GAO was asked to assess (1) DOE's reported accomplishments for the IPP program, (2) DOE's exit strategy for the program, and (3) the extent to which the program has experienced annual carryovers of unspent funds and the reasons for any such carryovers. Among other key assessments, mismanagement chief among them, the GAO found:

1. DOE has overstated accomplishments on the number of scientists receiving DOE support and the number of long-term, private sector jobs created.
2. DOE has not developed an exit strategy for the IPP program and recently expanded the program to new areas including providing assistance to scientists in Iraq and Libya. Most importantly, through the IPP program, the DOE is working to develop projects that support a controversial program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to expand the use of civilian nuclear power.
3. In every fiscal year since 1998, DOE carried over unspent funds in excess of the amount that the Congress provided for the program. Two main factors have contributed to this recurring problem—lengthy review and approval processes for paying former Soviet weapons scientists and delays in implementing some IPP projects.

The GAO recommended, among other things, that DOE conduct a fundamental reassessment of the IPP program, including the development of a prioritization plan and exit strategy.

Most significantly, nowhere in the report did the GAO mention issues of diversion of U.S. funds from Russia to support the Bushehr reactor in Iran. However, Michigan Representatives John D. Dingell, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak, chairman of that committee’s Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, are choosing to focus on this issue through letters, articles and hearings. My colleague Leonor Tomero has been closely reviewing the IPP and notes that Congress should truly be concerned about the very real issue of fund diversion to the controversial Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

However, Representatives Dingell and Stupak are concentrating on an essentially non-existent issue, claiming that the IPP program is providing funding for the Bushehr reactor through, for example, the Scientific Research Institute of Measuring Systems in Nizhny Novgorod, which is making control room equipment for the reactor. They sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman on February 6 in which they asked: “What policy logic justifies D.O.E. funding Russian institutes which are providing nuclear technology to Iran? How does this advance our non-proliferation goals?”

The Department of Energy responded in a statement, “We are confident that none of the projects cited by the House committee, or any of the department’s scientist engagement projects with Russia, support nuclear work in Iran.”

In the New York Time articles by Matthew Wald published on February 7, Representative Dingell said, “Only this administration would complain about proliferation in Iran, as part of President Bush’s axis of evil, and then finance it with American taxpayer dollars.” Meanwhile, Representative Stupak called it “schizophrenic foreign policy” and said “We should not be doing business with institutes that help promote Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

The fact that Russia is cooperating with Iran on the Bushehr reactor is not the heart of the matter and only deters focus from the real issues surrounding the efficacy of the IPP program. Although, given his voting record on Iran, it is not so curious that Representative Stupak in particular is choosing to misdirect the debate on issues surrounding the IPP to Russian cooperation with Iran.

It should, however, be noted that the Bush administration has indeed flip-flopped on the Bushehr issue. While the U.S. initially opposed Russian participation in building the Bushehr reactor and supplying it with fuel, the Bush administration changed its position last year in order to get Russian support for United Nations sanctions on Iran. The reversal in the U.S. position on the Bushehr reactor also followed Iran’s agreement to return spent nuclear fuel from the reactor back to Russia to ensure it doesn't extract plutonium to make nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has since been pointing to the Bushehr program to support arguments that Iran does not need a uranium enrichment program.

The Bushehr reactor is expected to start-up in 2009 and Iran received the final shipment of uranium fuel from Russia on January 28. The fuel, around 82 tons, is now in storage, sealed and under constant camera surveillance, per Russia’s demands, and subject to enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards verification procedures. The nuclear fuel will not be loaded into the reactor until all construction and testing work is complete, which is expected in Fall 2008.

Administration Policy Objectives on Iran

I noted in a blog post last week that in reviewing the conference report of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill, I discovered that House and Senate conferees agreed to drop a provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have prohibited not more than 75 percent of the amount authorized from being obligated until the President submitted a report on policy objectives and United States Strategy regarding Iran. According to the Conference Report, the President submitted the report to Congress. I also noted that I have not seen a public version, so I decided to inquire about it with a senior congressional aide.

According to my source, the Bush administration did submit the report over the summer after they had seen the provision in the Senate version of the Defense Authorization bill. The senior congressional aide also said that the report, presumably drafted by the State Department, had an early 2007 date on it but seemed to have been sitting collecting dust until they decided to send it to Congress this summer. The senior congressional aide said it was possible that after the State Department drafted the report, the Office of the Vice President or perhaps someone else refused to clear it because of language about a commitment to diplomacy.

I was also told there is only a classified version and Congress has not pursued insisting on an unclassified version because the whole exercise was "frustrating and the report was not particularly long or substantive, and we got pulled on to other things."

I personally believe that Congressional oversight of the Bush administration's policy on Iran is vitally important to keep the Administration accountable. Members of Congress should absolutely be pushing for an unclassified version of the Administration's policy objectives on Iran. The more people can weigh in with Congressional offices on this one, the better.

Open Letter from Akbar Ganji

Below is an Open Letter from Akbar Ganji to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon published prior to Iranian President Ahmadinejad's arrival to the UN General Assembly. The letter is also endorsed by more than 300 prominent academics.

Open Letter from Akbar Ganji to the UN Secretary-General
September 18, 2007

To His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations,

The people of Iran are experiencing difficult times both internationally and domestically. Internationally, they face the threat of a military attack from the US and the imposition of extensive sanctions by the UN Security Council. Domestically, a despotic state has through constant and organized repression imprisoned them in a life and death situation.

Far from helping the development of democracy, US policy over the past 50 years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran. The 1953 coup against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the unwavering support for the despotic regime of the Shah, who acted as America’s gendarme in the Persian Gulf, are just two examples of these flawed policies. More recently the confrontation between various US Administrations and the Iranian state over the past three decades has made internal conditions very difficult for the proponents of freedom and human rights in Iran.

Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government, shut down all independent domestic media, and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact being largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about the possibility of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran.

Iranian democrats also watch with deep concern the support in some American circles for separatist movements in Iran. Preserving Iran’s territorial integrity is important to all those who struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran. We want democracy for Iran and for all Iranians. We also believe that the dismemberment of Middle Eastern countries will fuel widespread and prolonged conflict in the region. In order to help the process of democratization in the Middle East, the US can best help by promoting a just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and pave the way for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. A just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state would inflict the heaviest blow on the forces of fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East.

Your Excellency,

Iran’s dangerous international situation and the consequences of Iran’s dispute with the West have totally deflected the world’s attention and especially the attention of the United Nations from the intolerable conditions that the Iranian regime has created for the Iranian people. The dispute over the enrichment of uranium should not make the world forget that, although the 1979 revolution of Iran was a popular revolution, it did not lead to the formation of a democratic system that protects human rights. The Islamic Republic is a fundamentalist state that does not afford official recognition to the private sphere. It represses civil society and violates human rights. Thousands of political prisoners were executed during the first decade after the revolution without fair trials or due process of the law, and dozens of dissidents and activists were assassinated during the second decade. Independent newspapers are constantly being banned and journalists are sent to prison.

All news websites are filtered and books are either refused publication permits or are slashed with the blade of censorship before publication. Women are totally deprived of equality with men and, when they demand equal rights, they are accused of acting against national security, subjected to various types of intimidation and have to endure variouspenalties, including long prison terms. In the first decade of the 21st century, stoning (the worst form of torture leading to death) is one of the sentences that Iranians face on the basis of existing laws. A number of Iranian teachers, who took part in peaceful civil protests over their pay and conditions, have been dismissed from their jobs and some have even been sent into internal exile in far-flung regions or jailed. Iranian workers are deprived of the right to establish independent unions. Workers who ask to be allowed to form unions in order to struggle for their corporate rights are beaten and imprisoned. Iranian university students have paid the highest costs in recent years in defence of liberty, human rights and democracy. Security organizations prevent young people who are critical of the official state orthodoxy from gaining admission into university, and those who do make it through the rigorous ideological and political vetting process have no right to engage in peaceful protest against government policies.

If students' activities displease the governing elites, they are summarily expelled from university and in many instances jailed. The Islamic Republic has also been expelling dissident professors from universities for about a quarter of a century. In the meantime, in the Islamic Republic's prisons, opponents are forced to confess to crimes that theyhave not committed and to express remorse. These confessions, which have been extracted by force, are then broadcast on the state media in a manner reminiscent of Stalinist show-trials. There are no fair, competitive elections in Iran; instead, elections are stage managed and rigged. And even people who find their way into parliament and into the executive branch of government have no powers or resources to alter the status quo. All the legal and extra-legal powers are in the hands of the Iran’s top leader, who rules like a despotic sultan.

Your Excellency,

Are you aware that in Iran political dissidents, human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners are legally deprived of "the right to life"? On the basis of Article 226 of the Islamic Penal Law and Note 2 of Paragraph E of Section B of Article 295 of the same law any person can unilaterally decide that another human being has forfeited the right to life and kill them in the name of performing one’s religious duty to rid society of vice. Over the past few decades, many dissidents and activists have been killed on the basis of this article and the killers have been acquitted in court. In such circumstances, no dissident or activist has a right to life in Iran, because, on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence and the laws of the Islamic Republic, the definition of those who have forfeited the right to life (mahduroldam) is very broad.

Are you aware that, in Iran, writers are lawfully banned from writing? On the basis of Note 2 of Paragraph 8 of Article 9 of the Press Law, writers who are convicted of "propaganda against the ruling system" are deprived for life of "the right to all press activity". In recent years, many writers and journalists have been convicted of propaganda against the ruling system. The court’s verdicts make it clear that any criticism of state bodies is deemed to be propaganda against the ruling system.

Your Excellency,

The people of Iran and Iranian advocates for freedom and democracy are experiencing difficult days. They need the moral support of the proponents of freedom throughout the world and effective intervention by the United Nations. We categorically reject a military attack on Iran. At the same time, we ask you and all of the world's intellectuals and proponents of liberty and democracy to condemn the human rights violations of the Iranian state. We expect from Your Excellency, in your capacity as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to reprimand the Iranian government in keeping with your legal duties for its extensive violation of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights covenants and treaties.

Above all, we hope that with Your Excellency's immediate intervention, all of Iran's political prisoners, who are facing more deplorable conditions with every passing day, will soon be released. The people of Iran are asking themselves whether the UN Security Council is only decisive and effective when it comes to the suspension of the enrichment of uranium, and whether the lives of the Iranian people are unimportant as far as the Security Council is concerned. The people of Iran are entitled to freedom, democracy and human rights. We Iranians hope that the United Nations and all the forums that defend democracy and human rights will be unflinching in their support for Iran’s quest for freedom and democracy.

Yours Sincerely,

Akbar Ganji

Federal Judge Orders Iran to Pay $2.65 Billion in Compensatory Damages

Last week, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered Iran to pay $2.65 billion in compensatory damages to families of 241 Marines murdered in the 1983 bombing of the US Marines' barracks inBeirut, Lebanon. The marines were in Lebanon at the time as part of a United Nations multinational peacekeeping contingent. Read the Memorandum Opinion of Deborah D. Peterson, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

Gulf Arms Deal Poorly Veiled Attempt to Mask American Policy Disaster

The proposed US arms deal to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman – is a poorly veiled attempt to mask the disaster of American policy in the region that has boosted Iran and weakened popular support for Arab regimes. At the announcement of the deals, US officials acknowledged that the common goal of the military aid packages and arms sales is to strengthen pro-Western countries against Iran as it seeks to extend its power in the region. Citing the Iranian threat as the main rationale for this deal is a convenient approach for the Administration to receive Israeli and Congressional acquiescence for selling the significant new military technology, meanwhile bolstering profits for US defense contractors.

The proposed US arms deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries, as well as the new military aid packages to Egypt and Israel would have disastrous consequences in Iran. After the fall of Sadam Hussein, Iran became the most conventionally superior force in the Gulf region. Iran currently spends around $4 billion on its military forces each year. The proposed arms deal would provide such a huge inflow of arms into the region that it could tip the balance in Tehran in favor of those who want to pursue nuclear weapons. They will argue that the only way for Iran to survive is to have a nuclear deterrent.

The reality is that the proposed arms deal to the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries may not produce much real military capability for many years, if at all. Iran’s military capability improvements thus far have focused on unguided rocketry, guided anti-ship missiles, coastal warfare and perhaps mines. It is essentially a capability to deter a US attack on Iran. If the US were to attack Iran, it could respond by using its force to significantly raise the costs of shipping in the Gulf and cut off oil exports from countries in the region. If the US does want to attack Iran in the future, it would need to significantly ramp up the forces of allies in the Gulf to quickly neutralize any Iranian response. Thus, the proposed arms deal is not so much “defensive” as it is strategically offensive, but it will take many more deals to ramp up the capabilities required.

The arms sales will only undermine true dialogue and diplomacy. Rather than ratcheting up tensions through arms sales in the region as has been US policy for the last two decades, the US should devote its resources to sustained dialogue with Iran on the range of issues at the core of tensions between the two countries. And instead of rewarding Saudi Arabia with a massive arms contract, the US should negotiate with the country to stop its sponsorship of terrorism in Iraq.

There is still time to prevent the arms deal as it must still go through Congress. Several House members, including Nadler (D-NY), Weiner (D-NY), Engel (D-NY) Woolsey (D-CA), Lee (D-CA) and Ferguson (R-NY) have announced their intention to try to block the sale. Congress can block major arms sales by passing a joint resolution of disapproval that the President has to sign.

New Nuclear Weapons Strategy Delivered to Congress

On July 24, 2007, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced that it is delivering the Bush Administration's nuclear weapons strategy to Congress. According to the NNSA press release, the document reiterates that the US will maintain a nuclear weapons stockpile into the future. It also describes the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) as the best means for ensuring the future nuclear deterrent.

The summary statement delivered by the Secretaries of Energy, Defense and State says that both North Korea and Iran's nuclear weapons program underscore the need for US security guarantees to key allies around the world. It also says that a credible U.S. nuclear capabilities "remain an indispensable part of deterrence and an inmportant element in our effort to limit proliferation." (Hopefully there is a longer version as this one is only three pages. I will post it if I get my hands on it.)

This statement lies in stark contrast to the language in the Senate Armed Services Committee Report on the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill. The report also references the difficulty of solving the Iran and North Korea nuclear issues if Congress gives a green light to new US nuclear weapons programs, such the Reliable Replacement Warhead.

Page 626 of the full report (pg. 648 in Adobe Acrobat pdf) reads: “Historically, the United States has sought to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear weapons states by being the world leader for nonproliferation. Many critics and skeptics of the RRW, including former Senator Sam Nunn, are deeply concerned that if Congress gives a green light to this program, such an action will be ‘misunderstood by our allies, exploited by our adversaries, complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons . . . and make resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all the more difficult.’”

The continued US reliance on nuclear weapons as a cornerstone of its national security policy is contrary to its international obligations to pursue nuclear disaramament. It is also contrary to US interests in nonproliferation. It is hypocritical for the US to tell countries that it can not pursue a nuclear program while it is trying to revitalize its own arsenal.

It also seems a worthwhile exercise to recall that the 2002 National Security Strategy outlined the Bush administration's willingness to engage in preemptive war, including the possibility of using nuclear weapons; and to recall the 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review which outlined contingency plans for use of nuclear weapons against seven named countries, including Iran and other non-nuclear weapons states.

NWI Issues Statement on Haleh

Yesterday, the Nobel Women's Initiative (NWI) issued this statement regarding Haleh Esfandiari's case. Shirin Ebadi, is one of the co-founders of NWI and also Haleh's lawyer.

A portion of the statement reads:

"Dr. Esfandiari’s harassment began even earlier than her arrest on May 8. Dr. Esfandiari went to Tehran in December 2006 to visit her 93 year old mother. On December 30, on her way to the airport to fly back to her home in the United States, she was stopped by three masked, knife-wielding men who took away all her belongings, including her American and Iranian passports.

Prevented from leaving the country, she was subjected to over 50 hours of interrogation by officials of the Ministry of Intelligence, subjected to intimidation and threatened with graver consequences if she did not “cooperate” with the authorities. Such interrogation methods continued after her unjustified incarceration in Evin Prison.

Iranian authorities apparently wish to charge her with actions against national security. Such charges are entirely without foundation.

In her work at the Wilson Center, Dr. Esfandiari has strived to provide a forum for exchanges among scholars, researchers and journalists representing a wide range of views on Middle Eastern issues. She has been a tireless promoter of and believer in dialogue between Iran and the international community. She has devoted a lifetime to the advancement of women’s rights in the Middle East."

Click here and here for more info on how US policy is affecting the arrest of Iranian Americans.

Statement of Bush Administration Policy on Iran in the Defense Authorization Bill

On July 10, the Bush administration released its Statement of Policy on S. 1547, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Regarding Iran, the Statement of Policy states:

"Amendments on Iran: The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution’s commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran, the President’ senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

Global View of US Plummets

A new poll conducted by The Pew Research Center and released on June 27, 2007 find that the image of the US around the world has plummeted, "including sharp drops in favorability among traditional allies in Western Europe, as well as substantial declines in Latin America, the Middle East, and elsewhere."

Of Iran-related interest is the view on US democracy promotion. US democracy promotion is seen as inconsistent (page 5 of the poll). Majorities in 43 of 47 countries surveyed – including 63% in the United States – say that the US promotes democracy mostly where it serves its interests, rather than promoting it wherever it can.

H.R. 1400 Passes House Foreign Affairs Committee

On June 26, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed H.R. 1400 by a vote of 37-1. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) was the lone voice voting against the measure in committee, but Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) remained silent on the measure. Below are some of my thoughts about H.R. 1400 (and S. 970, the Senate companion bill).

A section in the bill essentially threatens Russia to end nuclear and missile cooperation with Iran or the US will not enter into any 123 Agreement with Russia, which it has long sought from the US. It has actually been the long-standing policy of both the Clinton and Bush administrations to withold the 123 Agreement as a bargaining chip to gain leverage with Russia regarding the issue of Iran.

A Section 123 Agreement is the necessary agreement for the US to enter into nuclear cooperation with another country, as stipulated originally in the US Atomic Energy Act. It provides and outlines the "terms, conditions, duration, nature, scope, and other requirements of proposed agreements for cooperation; Presidential exemptions; negotiations; Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement."

In July, 2006, Bush and Putin announced they were open to negotiations on an agreement that would permit full nuclear cooperation between the two countries. Russia has long sought a 123 Agreement with the US.

We need Russia’s support within the UN Security Council to maintain and increase international pressure on Iran, which is more meaningful and will have better results than US unilateral sanctions and pressure alone. If in fact this section of H.R. 1400/S. 970 becomes law, Russia could feel threatened and would not have any incentive to continue to help foster support for ramping up pressure in the Security Council. In addition, Russia could renege on its agreement to accept Iranian nuclear waste from Buhsher, but rather let the waste stay in Iran, a move that would provide more fissionable material for the Iranian nuclear program.

I also want to point out that Russian missile/air defenses supplied or to be supplied to Iran would not threaten U.S. security. This provision is a direct result of a perceived Israeli security threat.

H.R. 1400 & S. 970 are unlikely to come to a vote on the House or Senate floor before Fall, possibly even before October, simply because of everything facing Congress. S. 970 has been stalled in the Senate and H.R. 1400 still must go through Financial Services and Ways and Means. Leg. Affairs at State Department also does not approve of H.R. 1400 as is, though we could see it amended to administration liking as we did with the Iran Sanctions Act (Iran Freedom and Support Act) in the wee hours of the morning on the last day of the Senate session before October recess last year.

Meanwhile, another bill, H.R. 957 (expanding and clarifying sanctions from aforementioned bill) is moving rapidly and we could see a vote on it this summer.

US Will Not Release Five Iranians Captured in Irbil

Robin Wright has a new story on the Washington Post website which reports that the US will not release the five Iranians captured in Irbil, Iraq in January until at least this coming October. Wright says, "The delay is as much due to miscommunication within the U.S. government as a policy decision, they said. " The decision could have negative ramifications for the four Iranian Americans who have been detained in Iran since May.

According to Wright, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari appealed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to free the five Iranians during a visit to Washington June 18-19.

"Zebari told U.S. officials that the release would promote progress in the new U.S.-Iran dialogue on Iraq, which brought diplomats from the two nations together last month in Baghdad at their first public meeting in almost three decades. Iran has become pivotal to U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq, since Tehran now has greater influence in Iraq with a wider cross section of parties than any other country. It has also armed, funded and trained many of the militant groups.

"Zebari warned that Tehran either might not attend a second session or not be cooperative unless the five Iranians are released, according to the sources."

State Department Democracy Promotion Funding Broken Down

On June 4, 2007, the US State Department released an update on "Democracy Promotion" funding for Iran. I am posting a breakdown below, but some comments first.

The State Department says the purpose of this funding is to support programs that "assist those inside Iran who desire basic civil liberties such as freedom of expression, greater rights for women, more open political process, and broader freedom of the press." On the surface this seems like a noble goal, but there is no transparency mechanism attached to this money. The State Department has said that information regarding who receives the money and what it is used for should remain classified in order to protect those who receive it. The problem with this argument is that the Iranian government is now detaining prominent Iranian Americans, like Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh, precisely because there is no transparency regarding these monies. They are being accused of taking money from the US government and acting as spies.

In an Op-Ed for the International Herald Tribune on May 30, 2007, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi (who by the way is also Dr. Esfandiari's lawyer) and Muhammed Sahimi explain the situation quite well. They write:

"The recent arrests, including the detention of Hossein Mousavian, a former nuclear negotiator and a close aid to Rafsanjani, should be viewed as Ahmadinejad's retaliation against the more moderate faction. But the most important reason has to do with President George W. Bush's policy toward Iran. Last year, the administration requested and received $75 million from Congress to 'bring' democracy to Iran.

Some of the $75 million has been devoted to the U.S.-funded Radio Farda, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as to VOA satellite TV, which are beaming Persian programs into Iran. Other portions have been given secretly to exiled Iranian groups, political figures and nongovernmental organizations to establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.

But Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.

According to the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis, noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is one of Washington's legal obligations.

The secret dimension of the distribution of the $75 million has also created immense problems for Iranian reformists, democratic groups and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hard-liners in Iran are terrified by the prospects of a 'velvet revolution' and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts.

Thus, Washington's policy of 'helping' the cause of democracy in Iran has backfired. It has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West."

Despite this reality, the President's request for FY 2008 is $108.71 million. The FY 2008 request includes $75 million for Economic Support Funds (ESF) to be spent on democracy promotion projects in Iran. It also includes $28.21 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Voice of America - Persian and Radio Farda programs and $5.5 million in Diplomatic and Consular Program (D&CP) funds. Congress has not yet approved this FY2008 budget request.

In the regular FY 2006 Foreign Operations spending bill, Congress appropriated no less than $6.55 million (Public Law 109-102) for Iran from Democracy Funds and requested that at least $10 million be spent by the State Department on democracy and human rights programs in Iran overall.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also requested $75 million in the FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental for Iran.

Congress only appropriated $66.1 million, allocated as follows (Public Law 109-234):
* $36.1 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG);
* $10.274 million in International Broadcasting Operations;
* $25.826 million in Broadcasting Capital Improvements.
* $20 million for democracy programs in Iran through the Middle East Partnership Initiative in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs;
* $5 million for Internet and other interactive programming through the Bureau of International Information Programs;
* $5 million for education and cultural exchanges through the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

According to the State Department, to date, it has obligated approximately $16.05 million for Iran democracy programs from our FY06 regular and supplemental budgets, which includes $11.9 million through MEPI and $4.15 million through the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Additionally, $1.77 million has been obligated through the Bureau of International Information Programs, and $2.22 million through the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs from the FY 2006 regular and supplemental budgets.

US Might Confront Iran on Nuclear Program

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Rice may confront Iran on its nuclear program when she goes to Egypt this week for a regional conference on Iraq security. Over the weekend, the Iranians had accepted an invitation to attend the conference on stabilizing Iraq.

According to President Bush: "Should the foreign minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won't be rude. She's not a rude person. I'm sure she'll be polite. But she'll also be firm in reminding the representative of the Iranian government that there's a better way forward for the Iranian people than isolation...

"If, in fact, there is a conversation, it'll be one that says, if the Iranian government wants to have a serious conversation with the United States and others, they ought to give up their enrichment program in a verifiable fashion. And we will sit down at the table with them along with our European partners and Russia as well. That's what she'll tell him."

The statement appears to be a toughened stance from previous comments by Secretary of State Rice and State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack who said she would be willing to talk to the Iranians.

Nuclear Safeguards and Supply Acts

Senators Lugar and Bayh, both from Indiana, have introduced a companion bill, S. 1138, to the International Fuel Bank bill introduced by Rep. Lantos on February 7, 2007. At the heart of the bills is a bargain: any country that forgoes uranium enrichment and reprocessing capabilities should be assured access to nuclear fuel at a reasonable cost. If enacted into law, the bills would provide $50 million for the establishment of the international nuclear fuel bank.

The principal issue if this ever becomes law, will be getting other countries in the world to go along with it, particularly when the United States continues to fail to fulfill its Article VI obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treat. Yes, remember that old thing? It's the bargain the U.S. and four other nuclear weapons states (Britain, China, France and Russia) struck with all of the world nuclear have-nots in 1968 in which they agreed to pursue in good faith negotiations for the elimination of their nuclear weapons. The other part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty bargain was that non-nuclear weapons countries agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and in exchange they have the right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. (As somewhat of a side note, Charles Furgeson at the Council on Foreign Relations has a new report out on nuclear energy that I highly recommend.)

So, back to the bills. It is clear that Iran and a few other countries are clearly targets for the measures. Senator Lugar's said when he introduced S. 1138:

"The future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the larger nonproliferation system it supports is in doubt. The existing safeguards regime used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has succeeded in forestalling nuclear weapons programs in the world's advanced industrial states, several of which were weighing the nuclear option 40 years ago. Unfortunately, this regime has failed to keep pace with the increase in the global availability of nuclear weapons technology, especially the technology and equipment for uranium enrichment and spent nuclear reactor fuel reprocessing, which can produce fissile material for weapons. Now the road to nuclear weapons can be traveled by determined countries with only a minimal industrial base. While the number of recognized nuclear weapon states has not dramatically increased over the years, the dangers of proliferation have become all too apparent as demonstrated by the A.Q. Khan network, the Iranian, North Korean, and Libyan examples."

Rep. Lantos also made clear he was targeting Iran when introduced his version of the bill, H.R. 885. He said: “If Iran’s nuclear program is truly peaceful, Tehran should welcome an opportunity to ensure a stable supply of nuclear fuel from an internationally-supported nuclear fuel bank located in a safe nation. If Iran is instead building a nuclear weapon, its nefarious intentions will be quickly exposed should it refuse to participate in this important project.”

Pulling of Iran Language Not So Coincidental

Last night, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the democratic leadership decided to pull language from the Supplemental Appropriations bill which stated that no funds may be authorized for military operations in or related to Iran unless specifically authorized by the Congress.

The move, not so coincidentally, coincides with AIPAC's annual conference, which Ms. Pelosi addressed on March 13, 2007. It also follows Vice President Dick Cheney's address to the AIPAC annual conference on March 12, 2007, during which he pleaded with AIPAC to "reign in anti-war democrats."

Thousands of AIPAC members are in Washington DC for the annual meeting and are lobbying individual lawmakers on the Hill for the rest of today. A priority for the group is to convince Congress to approve tougher sanctions on Iran, which is seen as a growing threat to Israel.

Rep. Pelosi's attempts to appease AIPAC and AIPAC-supported Members of Congress by taking out the language to prevent a military attack on Iran are particularly hypocritical given that in the same breath, she calls the Iraq war a failure. Congressional sources say she is attempting to finesse the move by saying that the language will be placed in some other piece of legislation. However, it is unclear which legislation, who will sponsor and when the vote on it would take place.

House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) may also have had a role in the decision to remove the language. In the 2006 mid-term elections, Hoyer received $34,500 in pro-Israel PAC contributions. (In the 2004 cycle, Pelosi received a mere $20,650 from pro-Israel PACs).

It is deplorable that Congress continues to subject itself to the power of AIPAC's purse. And it is deplorably hypocritical that at the same time the Democratic leadership issues statements saying that "the Bush Administration enjoyed virtually unfettered and unchecked power over our federal government - because one of the most complicit, complacent Congresses in history abdicated its constitutional obligation to conduct oversight," the leadership itself continues to abdicate its war-making authority to the administration.

It's not too late to re-insert the language into the Supplemental Appropriations bill, and the Committee members should do so hastily.

Warning: Shameless Self Promotion

What do you know, here is an interesting piece published today, by none other than, well...me. It's entitled "Iran, Let's Talk, not Attack," and you can find it by clicking here. Straight to the punchline:

"Instead of provoking a military confrontation, the United States should engage Iran in constructive dialogue without preconditions. Such a dialogue could begin by identifying issues on which critical U.S. and Iranian interests converge...

"There are legitimate concerns about the regime in Iran, particularly its human rights violations. But Iran is not a monolithic society and any struggle for reform must come from within the country itself. While Iranians themselves are angry about the declining economic situation, censorship and human rights abuses, they believe these are domestic concerns and should be addressed by Iranians, not foreign military intervention. Even in the last few weeks there has been a dramatic shift in top-end policy in Iran, including election victories by moderates and reformers, and the Supreme Council giving the green light for members of the Majlis to publicly criticize President Ahmadinejad.

"It's time to put aside the spin and sit down and talk. We can't bomb a country simply because we don't like it. Doing so would be recklessly shortsighted and only strengthen the hand of hardliners in Iran. In addition to the Iraq Study Group, there have been other bi-partisan commissions and study groups, including a 2004 working group established under the Council on Foreign Relations and co-chaired by Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski; and a 2001 Atlantic Council of the United States Working Group, co-chaired by Lee H. Hamilton, James Schlesinger and Brent Scowcroft, which have called for various forms of dialogue and engagement with Iran. Even if the administrations won't talk, we can pursue parliament-to-parliament and people-to-people exchanges in the near term.

If we want to see a change in Iran's behavior, we must pursue courageous diplomatic leadership to establish a serious sustained dialogue. Only then can we truly gauge Iran's intentions to deal with issues of concern to the United States, from settling outstanding questions regarding its nuclear program to helping stabilize Iraq. "

New Iraq NIE could be out tomorrow

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced, along with others, H.R. 770, a new resolution on Iran on January 31, 2007. It is a resolution stating that it is the policy of the US not to enter into a preemptive war with Iran and no fund appropriated to any US agency can be used for the purpose of carrying out covert action to cause regime change in Iran or carry out any military action against Iran in the abscence of an imminent threat.

Also, I heard on 31 January that the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq could be released on February 2, 2007. This could explain why "the Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said."

President Bush on Iran

Below are two excerpts from Juan Williams interview with President Bush on NPR on January 29, 2007. Click here for the full transcript and audio. General Gard notes that in this interview President Bush does only said that he does not have the intent of “going into Iran.” However, he did not say we would not attack Iran, which would be different than “going into” or “invading.” Another colleague notes that President Bush used the same language prior to the Iraq War. It is unclear however whether the President purposefully chose his wording.

MR. WILLIAMS: …Iran's ambassador to Iraq says Iran is planning to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iran – with Iraq. You said you have proof of Iran's role in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. I know you want to take care of this diplomatically – I've heard you say that – but if Iran escalates its military action in Iraq, how will the U.S. respond?

PRESIDENT BUSH: If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly. We – it makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm. And so we will do what it takes to protect our troops.

One of the things that is very important in discussing Iran is not to mix issues. Our relationship with Iran is based upon a lot of different issues. One is what is happening in Iraq. Another is their ambitions to have a nuclear weapon. And we're dealing with this issue diplomatically, and I think this can be solved diplomatically. And the message that we are working to send to the Iranian regime and the Iranian people is that you will become increasingly isolated if you continue to pursue a nuclear weapon.

The message to the Iranian people is that your government is going to cause you deprivation. In other words, you've got a chance to really flourish again as a great tradition. However, if your government continues to insist upon a nuclear weapon, there will be lost opportunity for the Iranian people. They won't be able to realize their full potential.

The Iranian people have got to know that this government and the United States bears no hostility to them. We're just deeply concerned about a government that is insisting upon having a nuclear weapon, and at the same time, rewriting history – the history of the past, and regards, for example, the Holocaust. It troubles a lot of people in this world, and I'll continue to work with, you know, friends and allies to send a clear message.

MR. WILLIAMS: By the way, just quickly, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader says that if you have an incursion into Iran, he expects that you would come to the Senate for approval.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I have no intent upon incur—going into Iran. I mean, this is the kind of thing that happens in Washington. People ascribe, you know, motives to me beyond a simple statement – of course we'll protect our troops. I don't know how anybody can then say, well, protecting the troops means that we're going to invade Iran. If that's what he's talking about, there's – I mean, we will protect our interests in Iraq. That's what the American people expect us to do. That's definitely what our troops want to do, and that's what the families of our troops want us to do. And if we find the Iranians are moving weapons that will end up harming American troops, we'll deal with it.
…
MR. WILLIAMS: One last thing, Mr. President. When you look at the quality of intelligence that you're getting about the nuclear program in Iran right now, do you think it's better than the quality of intelligence you were getting about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No question that there is a certain skepticism about intelligence. We all thought that that – that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and "we all" being not only the administration, but members from both political parties in the Congress. The previous administration felt that the intelligence indicated there was weapons of mass destruction. The international community – in other words, I just want you to know that there was a universal belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction including critics of Iraq, like the French, who voted for 1441 in the Security Council.

And therefore when it turned out not to be true, there is a certain skepticism about intel. And however, the skepticism about intel, while it needs to be tempered by, you know, the – by an analysis of statements or other fragments of intelligence – what I am trying to say that I take the Iranian nuclear threat very seriously even though the intel on Iraq was not what it was thought to be, and we have to.

Now – so how do you solve the problem on intel? Well, you get more human intelligence. You constantly reevaluate the system itself and make sure that these really fine souls that work for the different intelligence agencies are given the tools they need. And so – look, I'm like a lot of Americans that say, well, if it wasn't right in Iraq, how do you know it's right in Iraq. And so we are constantly evaluating, and answering this legitimate question by always working to get as good intelligence as we can.

MR. WILLIAMS: And Negroponte's departure, did it concern you – do you feel like the CIA, all of these intelligence agencies are doing a better job now?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think they understand the lessons of Iraq. And you know, we put the Silverman Robb Commission together, and wanted to make – look, the president needs the best intelligence. This is a war against a group of killers that still want to come and kill us, that is going to require accurate intelligence to give us the data necessary to act to protect Americans before the attack. And therefore we are all pulling for good intelligence.

And Negroponte is much needed at the State Department. He is one of these public servants who brings a lot of skills, and a lot of really – and a lot of good judgment. And I asked him to go to the State Department to help Condi, and found a very suitable replacement, a guy named Mike McConnell. And the change of personnel really is not a reflection upon whether or not the intel is getting better or worse; the change of personnel is putting our best players in the best positions as we head into the final two years of the administration.

Sec. Def. Gates Flip Flops

This is from an AP article on January 18, 2007 written by Robert Burns. In the article, Gates flip flops on his previous position in the 2004 Council on Foreign Relations report calling for engagement with Iran. In this article, he also tries to disassociate himself from the Iraq Study Group. But, I think most of us knew this was coming. Gates was involved with the Iran Contra. We know he flip flops for political access.

"Asked about the prospects for military conflict with Iran, whose nuclear program is seen by the Bush administration as a growing threat to U.S. interests, Gates said, 'There are many courses of action available that do not involve an open conflict with Iran — there's no need for that.'

"Gates said that although he had publicly advocated negotiating with Iran as recently as 2004, he now advises against that.

"'Right at this moment, there's really nothing the Iranians want from us,' he said. 'And so, in any negotiation right now we would be the supplicant,' asking Iran to stop doing such things as enriching uranium for its nuclear program.

"'We need some leverage, it seems to me, before we engage with the Iranians,' Gates added. 'And I think at some point engagement probably makes sense.'

"Until the Iranians are persuaded that, despite being bogged down in Iraq, 'the United States is in fact a formidable adversary, there's not much advantage for us in engaging with them,' he said.