PRI's The World » Bushehr

Dealing With Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

Matthew Bell — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:40:12 +0000

The question for Washington, “what to do about Iran’s nuclear program?” is not a new one. But in recent weeks, another question has made things more complicated for the US. And that is, “what are the Israelis planning to do?” The World’s Matthew Bell reports from Jerusalem.

Tensions Between Washington and Tehran Continue to Rise

The World — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:00:17 +0000

It’s not unusual to hear chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” in Tehran.

This week, though, those chants sound more chilling.

That’s because tensions between Tehran and Washington are rising rapidly.

Iranian leaders blame the US and Israel for the assassination Wednesday of an Iranian nuclear scientist.

American officials, on the other hand, are publicly warning Iran not to cross a couple of “red lines.”

One is the development of nuclear weapons.

The other is blocking the oil shipping lanes at the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Marco Werman talks with Borzou Daragahi, middle east correspondent for the Financial Times, about increasing tensions between the US and Iraq.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. It’s not unusual to hear chants of death to America and death to Israel in Tehran. Today though, those chants sound more ominous. That’s because tensions between Tehran and Washington rose rapidly this week. Iranian leaders blame the US and Israel for the assassination Wednesday of an Iranian nuclear scientist. American officials on the other hand are publicly warning Iran not to cross a couple of red lines; one is the development of nuclear weapons, the other is blocking the oil shipping lanes at the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Borzou Daragahi is a Middle East correspondent for the Financial Times. Borzou, there is so much happening now in Iran, help us sift through it. What are the most important developments in relation to Iran this week?

Borzou Daragahi: I think you went through the very important ones. I think one thing that’s really significant that you didn’t mention is the fact that Iran says that it is now open to restarting talks over its nuclear program. It could show that Iran on the one hand it’s sort of increasing its bluster, and on the other hand it’s genuinely concerned and wants to keep diplomatic options open. We who have been examining Iran closely have always thought that the you know, nuclear program that Iran embarked on was a means for the regime to ensure its own survival. And if at some point the regime decides that the nuclear program is hampering its own survival, then it might change course in some way, but we’ll see over the next few days whether this talk of negotiation is actually genuine.

Werman: I want to get back to the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan. It really couldn’t have come at a worse time in terms of ratcheting up tensions between the US and Iran. Borzou, now that you’ve had a couple of days to think about it, is the assassination significant in itself or does its significance really lie in its timing?

Daragahi: I think the timing is very curious and there are some who have speculated that it could have been the result of someone within the regime or from abroad who wanted to scuttle any chance of reproach, and who wanted to increase tensions between Iran and the west. Maybe they got wind that there was an attempt at a diplomatic settlement and wanted to stop that from happening, perhaps someone in the regime, perhaps someone in another country. I don’t think we’ll ever know, but absolutely, the timing is extremely significant.

Werman: There’s been so much posturing from both sides, the US and Iran, I mean various statements have been made by the US this week about how Iran would cross a major red line if it tried to close the Strait of Hormuz. On the other hand, for example, Iran just sentenced to death an Iranian American whom they accused of spying. Now that you’ve done some sifting for us, Borzou, is it clear to you who the aggressor is?

Daragahi: You know, I think there’s a case of mixed signals here. The Obama administration is working according to one diplomatic playbook and they’re sort of slowly, incrementally ratcheting diplomatic pressure, economic pressure on the Islamic republic in order to obtain the desired result, which is to get them to compromise on their nuclear program. Iran doesn’t see it that way. Iran sees every step in this steady escalation as an affront to a great nation, an insult to its dignity, and sees every single step as a crossing of a red line. And so they see what the Obama administration sees as sort of incremental pressure as an existential threat. And I think these two parties need to get on the phone with each other and sort of explain that to each other.

Werman: The Financial Times’ Borzou Daragahi, thank you very much.

Daragahi: It’s been a pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Iranian Nuclear Scientist Killed in Tehran Explosion

The World — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:00:57 +0000

A university lecturer and nuclear scientist has been killed in a car explosion in Tehran.

Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, an academic who also worked at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and another unidentified person were killed in the attack.

The blast happened after a motorcyclist stuck an apparent bomb to the car.

Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in recent years, with Iran blaming Israel and the US.

Both countries deny the accusations.

The BBC’s Security Correspondent Gordon Corera is following the story.

Marco Werman: I am Marco Werman. This is The World. Iran says the assassination of a scientist in Tehran today will not stop progress on the country’s nuclear program. The scientist was identified as 32 year old Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, a supervisor at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility. He was reportedly killed after someone on a passing motorcycle attached a bomb to his car with a magnet. The blast is also said to have killed the scientist’s driver. The BBC’s Security Correspondent Gordon Corera is following the story. He says the man who was killed may have had a unique role at the Natanz nuclear plant.

Gordon Corera: He appears to have been a specialist in a particular type of technique that’s used involving gas permeation which is part of the enrichment process and that seems to signify that he had some kind of specialist expertise in enrichment even though he was fairly young, in his early 30s. That would most likely be why he was targeted.

Werman: Who were the suspects in this killing?

Corera: Well, I think the assumption in a lot of quarters will be that this is the work of the Israeli spy agency, the Mossad. Now, of course they won’t confirm that. No one knows for sure. The Iranians have pointed the finger at the Israelis, also saying that the Americans and perhaps even the British, they’ve said in the past, might have been involved as well. But I think the assumption is always that the Israelis are behind this kind of activity. We can’t be sure about that. They do have a track record, it’s thought. If you go back even to the Iraqi nuclear program, late ’70s, they were doing these kind of covert actions to try and disrupt it. So, it’s something they have a tradition of doing, if you like. People in Israel won’t openly acknowledge it but they do talk about how they’re not displeased to see this kind of act take place.

Werman: Gordon, you’ve spoken with nuclear experts about the assassination. What do they make of it? I mean, is there a belief that you can actually stop a nuclear program by taking out scientists one by one?

Corera: No, I don’t think there is a belief in many quarters that you can stop it entirely. I think a lot of the covert campaign that’s been going on appears to be about delay. I think the hope is that whether it’s the killing of scientists, whether it’s the Stuxnet virus which sabotaged the centrifuges at Natanz, whether it’s some of the explosions that have taken place which are slightly mysterious, that these will introduce delay. Basically, all you can do is really buy time and, in that time, the hope is that perhaps sanctions, internal social, economic, political dynamics together those force a change of heart, a change of decision in Iran’s leadership in terms of where they want to go with the nuclear program. So, it’s essentially about buying time. I think it’s difficult to see that covert action can actually do any more than that; and there are risks too. I think it’s fair to say that, so far, Iran has been relatively restrained in its response, but at some point it may seek to strike back in some way and that could escalate the crisis in turn.

Werman: The BBC’s Security Correspondent Gordon Corera speaking with us from London. By the way, you can find a map of Iran’s key nuclear sites; it’s at theworld.org.

World News Videos by NewsLook

Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

The World Of Covert Operations In Iran

The World — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:50:33 +0000

The US has denied any involvement in the assassination of the nuclear scientist in Tehran.

Israel hasn’t commented on the incident but just yesterday, Israel’s military chief made a comment that’s interpreted by some now as a hint of involvement.

The Israeli official said Iran will be facing “un-natural setbacks” in the year ahead.

Gad Shimron is a former member of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.

Marco Werman: The U.S. has denied any involvement in today’s assassination in Tehran. Israel hasn’t commented on the incident but just yesterday, Israel’s military chief made a comment that’s interpreted by some now as a hint of involvement. The Israeli official said Iran will be facing “un-natural setbacks” in the year ahead. Gad Shimron is a former member of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad. He says Iran is highly invulnerable to infiltration.

Gad Shimron: It is relatively an open society. Relatively, I mean, if you compare it to North Korea for sure, but even to other countries in the world. You have tourists coming in. You have a very large Diaspora of Iranians who live outside Iran and have very good relations with families, with their relatives in Iran. What is most important, don’t forget, Iran is riddled with inner conflicts. You have the Baluchis in the east who want some more autonomy; you have the Kurds in the north-west; you have the Arabs in Kazakhstan, in the western provinces of Iran who really don’t think Iranians; and there are some very strong dissident organizations like the Mujahideen-e Khalq are fiercely anti-Ayatollahs, and therefore it is not that difficult to operate in Iran. There’s a lot of opposition, inner opposition in Iran. I believe there are locals…I believe there are Iranians who are guided, financed probably as well, by foreign intelligence organizations, and I think to their list of the usual suspects one should add not only Israel and the United States but also actually a wide coalition of international forces such as the British MI6, the Saudi Intelligence, even the Egyptian Intelligence before last year’s revolution was very much involved in the struggle to hold and delay the Iranian nuclear program.

Werman: And a magnetic bomb? I mean, we’ve seen these things in the movies but how widely are they used and is it an indicator of any particular strategy of any particular spy agency?

Shimron: No, you know. Nobody invents new things, they only just reuse them. The system is that two guys come on a motorcycle – there are a lot of motorcycles in Tehran, and in the traffic they just attach the magnetic bomb on the door…on one of the doors of the car and speed away. A few seconds later there is an explosion and the victim is gone.

Werman: What purpose do these sorts of assassinations really serve? I mean, could killing one person really affect Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

Shimron: Things like this cannot be quantified. It’s a matter of sending a message with the hope that, together with the economical sanctions which seem to work very well, will delay and eventually stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Werman: Why not just wait for sanctions to work?

Shimron: Because all the studies…If you go back in history and just study, let’s say, 200 sanctions imposed since 1920, sanctions alone don’t do the job. You always need something else and it seems that the recipe here is working. The combination of sanctions, the fact that the Iranian Rial is dropping very rapidly in the market – it’s losing a lot of value, unemployment is going up, the regime is facing very, very steep economical problems; this together with this problem of intimidating top scientists may even work. I mean, one cannot know. The results will speak for themselves later.

Werman: Journalist and former member of Mossad – the Israeli Intelligence Service, Gad Shimron thank you very much for your thoughts sir.

Shimron: Thank you.

Werman: I also spoke today with David Ignatius of the Washington Post about the moral issues involved in covert operations. Ignatius writes thrillers based on his in-depth knowledge of the intelligence community. He says he has no idea who is responsible for today’s assassination in Iran but…

David Ignatius: What I do know is the question of whether are…If covert activities in Iran should include activities that could have the effect of killing Iranians deliberately or by accident has been a very contentious one. This is the dirty side of state craft or undeclared warfare. It’s gone on since the times of the ancients. The Venetians had a masterful assassination service that was part of how they ran their commercial empire. It is a fact of life over many, many centuries but it’s an unattractive one. It’s for a good reason that governments refuse to acknowledge these activities because, if they did, I think the publics at home and abroad would be irate. These are things that look to people like murder.

Werman: David Ignatius of the Washington Post commenting on, as he put it, “the dirty side of state craft.”

Iranian President Ahmadinejad Visits Latin America Seeking to Reinforce Alliances

The World — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:20:34 +0000

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in Latin America this week on a four-nation tour with visits to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador.

Ahmadinejad is seeking to reinforce ties with the few allies Iran has left – and also possibly to annoy the United States.

Marco Werman speaks with Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue.

Marco Werman: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in Latin America today. He’s on a four-nation tour with visits to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador. Ahmadinejad is seeking to reinforce ties with his allies in the region. He may also be looking to annoy the United States. Michael Shifter is President of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. Michael, you just wrote a piece in Foreign Policy Magazine with the subtitle “Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s latest tour of Latin America a waste of time?” Is it?

Michael Shifter: Well, I don’t think he’s going to get very much out of it. He is going to needle and irk the United States and annoy the United States; he’s already accomplished that. There’s been some reaction in Washington. But he’s not getting much play in the major countries of the region that are not very interested in joining alliance with Ahmadinejad; they reject him. He’s really going to four countries that are on the margins politically, so he’s not going to get very much out of it either in economic terms or in diplomatic terms.

Werman: This is his sixth tour, though, of Latin America since he came to power in 2005. What’s his real interest there? Does he want to expand Iranian influence in this hemisphere and what do the Latin Americans make of that influence anyway?

Shifter: I think he wants to expand and there have been some Embassies that have opened up in the region. Trade has increased with a number of countries. There have been some modest investments, but it really hasn’t amounted to very much. The country itself, Iran, is in dire straits and it’s very little what he can do in Latin America. The countries are open to the economic and diplomatic side but certainly are very wary and cautious and understand that he is under enormous international pressure because of the nuclear program.

Werman: If you look across Latin America though, aren’t there economic relations with Iran in place that are pretty significant; trade deals, oil deals, etcetera that many countries would probably prefer not to put at risk, and I’m wondering, will they abide by U.S. sanctions on Iran or not when push comes to shove?

Shifter: They have a number of trading relationships. Brazil is the most significant trading relationship which has more than doubled since 2005, but there have been a lot of projects that have been promised that haven’t delivered. That oil refinery in Ecuador, constructing a port in Nicaragua; Iran really hasn’t come through. So, Latin Americans are waiting to see whether Iran will come through this time, but there’s a lot of skepticism. As far as the sanctions are concerned, there’s not going to be any appetite to really confront Iran. Also, most Latin American countries, the major countries have said they’ve got to go along with sanctions that are supported by the United Nations and by the international community.

Werman: So, you don’t really see this as an Iranian threat in the U.S. backyard?

Shifter: I think it’s something to keep a close watch on, but I don’t think it’s a threat. Given that he’s going to these four countries really doesn’t amount to very much and it really is to provoke and needle the United States which I think he is accomplishing.

Werman: Michael Shifter, President of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, thanks very much.

Shifter: Thank you.

US Man Sentenced to Death in Iran

The World — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:00:41 +0000

An American of Iranian descent has been sentenced to death by a court in Tehran for allegedly spying for the CIA.

Former Marine Amir Mirzai Hekmati was “sentenced to death for cooperating with a hostile nation, membership of the CIA and trying to implicate Iran in terrorism,” semi-official Fars news agency said.

The 28-year-old’s US-based family say he was in Iran visiting grandparents.

The sentence comes at a time of fresh tensions between Iran and the West over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Lisa Mullins speaks with the BBC’s Mohsen Asgari about the case.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. Today, the United States urged Iran to release Amir Hekmati. He’s a 28-year-old American of Iranian descent and he’s been sentenced to death in Iran on charges of being a CIA agent. US officials have denied the charges and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland did so again today.

Victoria Nuland: If it is true that he has been so sentenced we would condemn this verdict in the strongest terms, and we are working with all of our partners to convey that condemnation to the Iranian government. We’ve maintained from the beginning that the charges against him were a fabrication and we call on the Iranian government to release him immediately.

Mullins: That’s Victoria Nuland. Amir Hekmati is a former marine and a dual US and Iranian citizen. He claims he was in Iran to visit his grandmother’s, but that did not stop his trial from going forward.

Amir Hekmati: [speaking Arabic]

Mullins: Hekmati’s supposed confession was aired last month on Iranian state TV. In it he describes being part of a plot to infiltrate Iran’s Intelligence Ministry. Hekmati is the latest in a long list of US-Iranian dual citizens to face such a charge in Iran. The BBC’s Mohsen Asgari is following this case and the reaction to it in Tehran.

Mohsen Asgari: Actually, Iran has frequently accused America of sabotaging this system in the country or seeking for undermining its regime by doing some covert operational activities. So this is something very normal and usually the people in Iran don’t pay attention to these things a lot because they are obsessed with their economy problems. And they have heard a lot about the fact that some American citizens have been arrested by the Iranian system, but at the end they all have been released. In July 2009 remember that three Americans had been arrested and they had been kept in Iran for 2-1/2 years with the same accusations, but finally they were released on bail.

Mullins: So what does that say about the chances of this particular American, Amir Hekmati, being released as well?

Asgari: It’s a political thing I think because in recent weeks we have been receiving a lot of threatening messages from American officials against Iran. And they are talking about widening the sanctions on Iran’s economy. On the other side Iran has launched a military exercise and have test fired a lot of missiles at the Persian Gulf, threatening America. So this is a war of words between the two sides and this is a very risky threat I think if they want to execute this person. It is a [declaration] of war against America I think and the stake is so high potentially that no one wants it to happen.

Mullins: One other thing about that, if you’re saying you can’t separate the global politics from the individual court cases like the case against this American accused of spying, what is Iran saying is its strongest evidence that Mr. Hekmati is indeed a spy?

Asgari: Iranian system has not posted any documents yet accept the confession of Mr. Hekmati that was shown on Iran’s state TV saying that he has been deceived by the CIA to infiltrate into Iran’s security system and implicate Iran in terror reason. This is the whole document that we have heard so far. But their point is that Iran is trying to increase its bargaining power in the run up to the supposedly nuclear talks because Iran has at the same time sent a letter to 5-plus-1 countries to pave the ground for a fresh round of nuclear talks. By means of these things Iran is trying to increase its bargaining power.

Mullins: All right, Mohsen Asgari, thank you.

Asgari: You’re welcome.

World News Videos by NewsLook

Read tweets about Iran

Who is Amir Hekmati?

The World — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:50:10 +0000

Anchor Lisa Mullins finds out more about Amir Hekmati, the Iranian-American sentenced to death for spying in Iran, from Hadi Ghaemi, of the International Campaign for Human Rights, in New York.

Lisa Mullins: Amir Hekmati was tried and sentenced in Tehran as an Iranian citizen, but he’s also an American citizen, born to Iranian parents in Arizona and raised here in the US. Hadi Ghaemi has been in touch with Hekmati’s family. Ghaemi runs the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. He is based in New York.

Hadi Ghaemi: The family are in total shock at the news and they don’t know anymore than what the media has reported so far, and particularly given that Iranian judiciary has not allowed them to have legal representation inside Iran. They have no contact and no more information at the moment.

Mullins: And who is he being represented by if…

Ghaemi: In the lower court there was a court-appointed lawyer, who from what we understand, practically did nothing to present the facts and launch a credible defense for Amir.

Mullins: Well, what would have been appropriate in terms of his defense?

Ghaemi: Well, any good lawyer would have asked for any incriminating evidence that based on what evidence is being charged with his membership in the CIA and doing spy work in Iran.

Mullins: Excuse me for one second, do you know if that was ever presented by the government?

Ghaemi: Yes, the government is saying because of his record in the military he has been recruited by the CIA to go there and infiltrate the Iranian Intelligence Services, which is highly unlikely scenario given Amir had never been to Iran and had no understanding or record of working on Iran issues.

Mullins: He was in the Marine Corps where he served as a translator, and what was he doing for work at the time he was in Iran?

Ghaemi: At the time we understand that he was a freelance contractor. He actually did not have any permanent job and just wanted to go visit his grandmother on the even of a major holiday.

Mullins: And did the government know this, know about his background?

Ghaemi: Yes, yes exactly, the point is that when Amir applied for his passport processing at the intersection of the Iranian government in Washington, DC, he provided all details of his military service, which goes back to 2001 up to 2005. And sought assurances from them that this is not going to cause him any trouble. And they told him it should be all fine. And actually when he arrived in the airport there was no questioning and no issues. Only two weeks after he was in Iran he was detained.

Mullins: I wonder given the language skills of Amir Hekmati and the fact that he has local connections, family there, and given his military background, does it seem to you plausible that he could be a spy?

Ghaemi: Not at all. Again, why should he go there telling the Iranian government his entire background? Why should he carry IDs showing he has had been enrolled in the US military? And knowing the Iranian Intelligence Services and government it would be extremely difficult to penetrate and make connections to provide any kind of information out of that system. It’s extremely opaque and hard to have any access to the inner workings of the Iranian government.

Mullins: What else do you know about him?

Ghaemi: From what I understand he had never been to Iran, but had a great love for the culture and the country, and his family there. And that this summer since he was in the region he decided to go and pay a visit to his grandmother. He felt like he just was making a short vacation there, but they trapped him basically.

Mullins: Do you know anything about how he is coping since he’s been imprisoned for what is it, four months now?

Ghaemi: Yeah, more than four months, August 29 is when he was detained. And no, there’s been no access to him really. The Swiss embassy that represents the American government interest in Tehran has not been allowed any access to him. The family-appointed lawyer has not been given any information or access to him. So he’s been kept in pretty much isolation and this again, is just a classic pattern of holding people in solitary confinement for months and then urging them to cooperate with interrogators to get a lenient outcome. And it always turns the other way. People who do cooperate and keep silence, the families keep silent, are always shocked to find out that all of the promises made were false. And in this case a death sentence is very shocking.

Mullins: Hadi Ghaemi of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, speaking to us from New York, thanks.

Ghaemi: Thank you, it is my pleasure.

Russia Rejects New Iran Sanctions

The World — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:00:21 +0000

A new UN report says Iran is getting closer to making an atomic bomb. But Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace tells host Marco Werman that the new evidence has not swayed China and Russia, and so Washington is unlikely to get tough international sanctions against Tehran.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. Iran’s President says his country will not budge one iota on its controversial nuclear program. That program is back in the spotlight thanks to a new report by the UN’s Nuclear Agency. The IAEA says there is credible evidence that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The Iranian government continues to insist that its nuclear program is peaceful. The new report has led to fresh calls to strengthen international sanctions against Iran. Karim Sadjadpour is an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He says the report might complicate Tehran’s relationship with its allies.

Karim Sadjadpour: This report is going to make it more difficult for Russia and China to continue to vouch for Iran’s peaceful nuclear intentions, but I think Russia and China will continue to argue that the only way to resolve this issue is diplomacy, not coercion. So, I don’t see the basic facts on the ground changing. What I would further argue is that, for those who are cynical about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, no additional proof is necessary. And for those who are cynical about American intentions vis-a -vis Iran, no additional proof is sufficient.

Werman: That sounds like the eternal standoff. I mean, stepping back, what will it take in the long run for the US and the Iranians to sit down?

Sadjadpour: I think the challenge you have from the vantage point of the US government is that you’re dealing with a regime in Tehran who sees their opposition to the United States as central to their identity. I think there are now 3 symbolic pillars of their identity as a regime, and that’s animosity towards the United States, animosity towards Israel, and the veil – the hijab for women. So, I think the challenge for the US government is how do you go about reaching a modus vivendi; how do you reach a rapprochement with a regime in Tehran which needs you as an adversary? And that’s the challenge for any US government whether you are Republican or Democrat. So, my sense is that moving forward US policy towards Iran is going to increasingly resemble US foreign policy towards the Soviet Union in the 1980′s. I think the challenge will be to contain our dispute with Iran, contain Iran itself until the regime is eventually forced to change under the weight of its own internal contradictions and economic malaise, or the regime essentially changes like we’ve seen in parts of the Arab world now.

Werman: Will this report and the reaction to it from the West accentuate the deep internal divisions among Iran’s rulers? I’m wondering if there are divisions over what this report says in the Iranian street, as well.

Sadjadpour: There was a very telling moment after the US-led or the NATO-led intervention in Libya. The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei gave a speech, and he said that Muammar Gaddafi’s main mistake was giving up his nuclear program, because when he gave up his nuclear program he made himself vulnerable to this NATO intervention. So, sometimes when you read between the lines of Iranian officials, you get a sense that they believe that if they were to acquire nuclear weapon it would actually alleviate the pressure against them rather than augment it. When it comes to the Iranian people – the proverbial Iranian street- there hasn’t been any open debate about the cost and benefits of this nuclear program. I think if they were…

Werman: And that’s because they don’t care, or because there is no disagreement?

Sadjadpour: The way the Iranian government has framed this issue is that the “Imperialist West” wants to deprive Iran of this wonderful civilian nuclear energy technology. The reality is that this nuclear program for Iran has had enormous costs – tens of billions of dollars of sunk costs, not to mention the tens of billions of dollars that Iran has lost from sanctions. But, I think very few Iranians have been aware of that cost-benefit analysis. And, as a former Iranian official once put it several years ago – he said that if you were to ask the average Iranian whether they want a nuclear program, everyone would say yes; and if you were to ask the follow-up and say, “Okay, well what is exactly a nuclear program?”, very few people would be able to explain to you what it is. That’s the testament to the way the regime has limited information. And it’s also a testament to Iranian nationalism and the sense that, historically, the great powers of the world, be it Britain, the United States, Russia, have wanted to keep Iran down for their own benefit. I don’t think that’s true anymore, but that narrative still has a lot of currency within the Iranian body politic.

Werman: Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, speaking with us from Washington. Thanks very much.

Sadjadpour: My pleasure. Thank you.

Former UN Weapons Inspector On Iran Report

The World — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:50:10 +0000

Anchor Marco Werman speaks with Hans Blix, former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the UN’s chief weapons inspector for Iraq prior to 2003, to get his assessment of the agency’s report on Iran’s nuclear program.

Marco Werman: Hans Blix is a former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and was the UN’s chief weapons inspector for Iraq prior to 2003. He’s at home in Sweden. Having read the report, Hans Blix, do you think the evidence is conclusive that Iran has carried out “activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device”?

Hans Blix: Yes, I think the report is much more detailed and convincing, and it’s also assessed. And so, while earlier you had the tendency to say that this raises questions, now they have actually assessed it and they say that the evidence is credible. They do not draw the conclusion that Iran will make a bomb, they simply…the evidence shows amply that they had activities that moved them closer to the bomb option.

Werman: This is in contrast to the US assessment in 2007 which said that the nuclear program was essentially closed down with some minor enriching going on. So, it sounds clear to you that this work is still continuing?

Blix: Well, what the Agency says is that before 2003 they can identify a structured program and after that, lesser so. But still, they faced a number of activities after 2003 and even continuing now. So, it doesn’t really directly contradict the US conclusions, but it’s perhaps more nuance in suggesting that, yes, things did continue after 2003 – perhaps not at the same level and intensity.

Werman: The IAEA has a history of being very cautious. It was skeptical of the evidence presented by the Bush Administration on Iraq during that crisis and lead-up to that. How confident are you that the Agency that you used to direct is keeping the same standards?

Blix: Well, I am not in it now so I can’t really judge with absolute certainty, but the tradition of being cautious, I think, is right. We certainly learned in the Iraq case, when we were in New York, that it was highly justified. Because intelligence agencies come up with all kinds of findings and they want to draw conclusions and they know that the Agency has a higher credibility than they do. So, they would love the Agency to, sort of, embrace this evidence and embrace that conclusion and make it their own. The Agency has to be cautious. I mean, in the case of Iraq, you will remember that we had the story about the contract concluded between Iraq and Niger, and it turned out to be a forgery. We had the aluminum tubes that were said to be for enrichment purposes, and they turned out to be for something else. So, I think they just have been wise in being very cautious. But this time, there’s a lot of evidence they’ve referred to come fairly to rather long ago and they have been accessing carefully. I think it makes this early credible impression much more solid than I had thought.

Werman: What kind of pressure do you come under from foreign governments, as head of the IAEA, to tailor reports one way or the other? It seems like there must be some pressure.

Blix: Yes. The governments will push if they have a policy that they would like to slam on various sanctions and they would hope that their findings would be suitable to underpin that. I think that the Agency’s standing in the world depends upon it being very judicious, and I think they have been so, as far as I can judge. That makes it the more serious what they are coming with now. It feels fairly cautious and very calm in language, but you do get the impression that yes, Iran is moving forward and not to the same structured way as before. But anyway, they are moving closer to weapons option. Whether they actually will manufacture a weapon, no, this doesn’t say; nor it that necessary. I think it’s a bit of an obsession about asking it, do they have the weapon next year or next month, or two years from now. Then I think the most important question is – what is the world to do about it? How is the world to react to this?

Werman: Hans Blix, former weapons inspector and former head of the IAEA, speaking with us from Sweden. Thanks very much for your time.

Blix: You’re welcome. Bye-bye.

Hawkish Talk In Israel About Iran

Matthew Bell — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:40:38 +0000

The United Nations nuclear watchdog agency is due to release a new report on Iran’s nuclear program this week.

And it’s expected to be highly critical of Iranian intentions.

Iran said the leaked contents of the International Atomic Energy Agency report are “fabrications.”

But the episode has already fuelled speculation that the Israelis might consider bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israelis across the political spectrum have long considered Iran’s nuclear program to be a grave threat. And Israeli leaders have long alluded to the necessity of using military action. But news reports suggest this time, an attack could be imminent. Today, Israel’s finance minister Yuval Steinitz said he hoped the forthcoming UN report would finally bring the gravity of the Iranian nuclear threat into focus for the international community.

“We know it already for 15 years, it is very clear and now it is going to be crystal clear to the entire world. And therefore Iran is producing the most dangerous threat, not just to Israel and the Middle East, but to Europe, the United States and the rest of the world, and it’s up to the world to do its utmost.”

“Israel is trying to convince the world. But the question is, is there anything behind these threats? And I would say, yes,” said Ronen Bergman, a military affairs analyst at the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

Bergman said Israel is sending the message that if the world does not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then Israel will take matters into its own hands.

“I would say that Israel, as a last resort, if it is convinced that the world is not going to take serious actions against Iran, the Israeli prime minister – not just Netanyahu – I think any Israeli prime minister would launch the bombers to hit the Iranian nuclear sites,” Bergman said.

The new US defense secretary just paid a visit to Israel. And Leon Panetta said something publicly that was perceived here as a word of caution to prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Panetta said that when it comes to decisions about Iran, things need to be coordinated between the Israeli and US governments. Nicholas Burns is former undersecretary of state who worked on Iran policy under president George W. Bush.

“If Israel were to strike unilaterally, it would almost by definition drag the US into a war. Iran’s going to respond,” Burns said. “I think Iran would like nothing than to get into a war with Israel. We’d have to support Israel. So it’s very important that the US have an agreement with Israel: “we’ve got this one. We’ve got your back. We’ll protect you. But don’t drag us into a war that’s not of our choosing.”

The Israeli public and political leadership is deeply divided on this issue.

A former head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, Meir Dagan, caused a huge stir when he said early this year, that bombing Iran was, quote, the “stupidest thing” he’s ever heard. Jeffrey Goldberg is national correspondent with The Atlantic.

He said several former Israeli intelligence and military officials fear that prime minister Netanyahu, along with his defense minister Ehud Barak, are ready to strike Iran. And that there’s no one left in the upper echelons of power to advise them against doing so.

“Ultimately, if the prime minister and the defense minister tell the Israeli air force to attack Iran, it will attack Iran,” Goldberg said. “It has plans. It has practiced for this. It believes, like any good air force, that it can do anything. And so, this will happen if the prime minister decides that it will happen.”

Goldberg agrees that some of what’s going on here is public posturing on the part of the Israeli government. This is aimed at getting the US and allies to hit Iran with tougher sanctions. But he adds that the Israeli prime minister is also completely sincere when he talks about the need to stop Iran going from nuclear.

Iran Powers Up Bushehr Nuclear Plant

The World — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:50:53 +0000

The Iranian nuclear plant of Bushehr is being launched Monday after years of delays. Nuclear experts say that while the plant may not be used for weapons’ production, it could present safety issues. Anchor Lisa Mullins talks to David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

Lisa Mullins: Russia is also a key player when it comes to Iran’s controversial nuclear program. The Russians have worked with Iran for years on the development of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Well, today Iran announced that it is stepping up operations at Bushehr. The Power Plant’s launch has been delayed for years as the U.S. and other nations grew suspicious of Iran’s nuclear power program. David Albright is President of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. He says Bushehr remains a controversial project.

David Albright: It involves a German reactor that was sold to Iran in the ’70s. Germany dropped out – Russia stepped in, and part of the controversial part is this – that Iran spent a billion dollars buying equipment from Germany and they wanted to re-use that equipment. And so, they have imposed on the Russians the requirement that old German equipment that dates back to the ’70s and ’80s will be used in this Russian designed nuclear reactor that’s been fitted into the old German buildings. That creates problems. Equipment only lasts for a certain length of time even if it is idle, and some of that equipment is already broken. A water pump broke. It has raised concerns that, maybe in 5 – 10 years from now, more of this equipment will be breaking. And that brings up another issue. Is Iran ready to regulate and run a nuclear power plant? It has some old-fashioned regulatory structures; it has not signed onto the International Conventions that are surround nuclear power, and so there is worry that its regulatory environment is not robust enough to police this, the operation’s reactor, and make sure that all the procedures are properly followed.

Mullins: Yeah, but the Russians also have a role in this.

Albright: Well, they do for a while. There is something called a ‘guaranteed period of assistance’ that lasts for one year from the start of commercial operation, and so, it should be either starting today or soon. Russia will continue to have its people run the plant, it will be teaching the Iranians and they will be responsible for any repairs. And I think, during the time the Russians are around, probably we don’t have much to worry about. In my mind, it’s once they leave and Iran takes over this, because of this odd design of combining the German and Russian reactor.

Mullins: Right now, this plant is pumping out electricity at about a 40% capacity to provide electrical power to Iranians. They say that they are entitled to do that. There has been, at least, concern though that that could be a one point converted into some kind of nuclear weaponry. Is that still a concern?

Albright: Much, much so. I mean, Iran spent $2 billion on this plant to generate electricity. It would have to be a pretty major national emergency that would lead it to decide to use it to make plutonium for nuclear weapons or divert low-enriched uranium to nuclear weapons. I mean, that’s not a simple step; they would have to further enrich it. And its indigenous, national uranium enrichment program is probably a decade or more from being able to produce enough low-enriched uranium every year to fuel the Bushehr reactor. In terms of commercial operations, it has a very dinky enrichment program that doesn’t even operate very well. And so, to think they could use that enrichment program to fuel Bushehr is just not credible for at least a decade. And so, if Iran refuses the Bushehr reactor, it’s going to stop operation and its $2 billion investment. I think Iran is unlikely to want to do that.

Mullins: All right. David Albright is the former inspector of the Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program. He is now President of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. Nice to talk to you.

Albright: I thank you very much.

Iran and world powers hold nuclear talks

The World — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:25:45 +0000

Iran and key world powers have begun talks in the Swiss city of Geneva on Tehran’s disputed nuclear program. These are the first such talks in more than a year, although analysts say any breakthrough is unlikely. On Sunday Iran said it had delivered its first domestically produced raw uranium and would now go into the talks with “strength and power”. Western powers fear Iran may be trying to produce nuclear arms, but Tehran says its program is purely peaceful. Lisa Mullins talks with the BBC’s Iran correspondent James Reynolds who is at the meeting.
Download MP3

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. Of the foreign policy dilemmas that face the Obama administration, none is more vexing than Iran. The Iranians say their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But Western countries suspect it could be used to make nuclear bombs; and neither the U.S. nor Israel has ruled out military action if Iran fails to head U.N. Security Council demands to freeze key nuclear programs. Today, delegates from the United States and other world powers met with representatives from Iran in Geneva. The BBC’s James Reynolds is at that meeting. What is the goal overall at the meeting, James?

James Reynolds: Lisa, the goal, according to negotiators I spoke to, is incredibly simple; they say Iran has to live up to its obligations. And those obligations are that it sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and it has to explain what on earth it’s doing enriching so much uranium. Essentially, that’s the key point.

Mullins: All right. Well, Iran is there at the meetings right now. How are they going and how is Iran responding?

Reynolds: Well, we’ve been told that the meetings are constructive. We usually of course hear that when there are big meetings like this. It was rather interesting, at the start Baroness Ashton, who is leading the negotiations for the EU and the U.N. security council, went and she bumped into Saeed Jalili, he’s the main negotiator for the Iranians, and they sort of nodded formerly at each other. She didn’t offer a handshake because of for religious and political reasons he wouldn’t have been able to take her hand. And so they walked and then stood in front of some flags at a rather respectful distance — you could’ve fitted about three people in between them with the distance they had. And we’re told that they had constructive talks. But here is the key point: nobody is expecting any kind of breakthrough. This is a problem which has been going on since 2002, eight years; we’ve had four rounds of sanctions in the United Nations. Nobody thinks that two days of talks here in Geneva, the frozen hills of Switzerland, are gonna end the problem.

Mullins: Well, it’s unlikely that this is a coincidence, but Iran announced yesterday it has established its own domestic supply of yellow cake. This is a significant announcement, as we said timing is everything. First, tell us what yellow cake is.

Reynolds: Yellow cake is a raw material needed in order to make enriched uranium. Enriched uranium can be used for civilian purposes, but it can also be the first step towards building a nuclear bomb. That’s why people are so worried about yellow cake. Now, foreign countries are not allowed to sell Iran yellow cake at the moment; that’s in one of the United Nations’ sanctions resolutions against Iran. So Iran has tried to mine its own yellow cake from inside its borders. It was delighted to announce just yesterday that it’s got enough yellow cake to get started. So symbolically, politically, that’s a hugely important point. But, Lisa, here’s the problem for Iran: practically, it may not make that much difference because experts that we’ve been speaking to suggest that Iran simply does not have enough of its own uranium inside its own mines and its own borders to be self sufficient to make enough uranium; that essentially they’re going to have to carry on looking outside their borders for yellow cake.

Mullins: All right, James, while the talks are going slowly there where you are in Geneva, it appears somebody is taking more direct action. There are cyber attacks on Iran’s nuclear program and there has been, as you know, the assassination of some scientists on the streets of Tehran. To what extent are these incidents coming up in the discussions in Geneva?

Reynolds: We know that the assassination of one scientist last week and a serious injury to a second, they were mentioned by Iran right in the first statement of their chief negotiator’s cite, Saeed Jalili. We know that’s really important to Iran. I’ve just been skimming some official in-writing websites, and that’s really the lead story of the talks. Iran as soon as these scientists were killed made an allegation Western intelligence agencies were responsible for the attacks on the two men. We understand that Iran did not repeat that accusation at the talks, but it mentioned the fact that the gentleman were killed. And we understand Baroness Ashton for the European Union said that she condemned the attack unreservedly. In terms of the stocks net virus, this virus that apparently stopped some of Iran centrifuges from working, we don’t know whether that was talked about.

Mullins: All right. The BBC’s James Reynolds at the nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva. Nice to have you on the program, thank you.

Reynolds: My pleasure.

Iran to start another nuclear plant

The World — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:20:29 +0000

Iran's key nuclear sites

Iran said today it will begin construction of a third nuclear enrichment plant by March of next year. The Islamic republic already has a large enrichment site at Natanz and a smaller one near Qom. Today’s announcement referred to 10 new enrichment plants Iran plans to build. The US and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charges. The World’s Katy Clark talks with Greg Thielmann who is an intelligence expert at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Download MP3

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

KATY CLARK: I’m Katy Clark and this is The World. Iran said today it will begin construction of a third nuclear enrichment plant by March of next year. The Islamic republic already has a large enrichment site at Natanz and a smaller one near Qom. Today’s announcement referred to 10 new enrichment plants Iran plans to build. The US and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charges. Greg Thielmann is an intelligence expert at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Greg, some people may think that Iran already has nuclear weapons, but, technically at least, how far off are they?

GREG THIELMANN: Well, that is one of the questions of the moment, Katy. US Defense Secretary Gates says that Iran could have sufficient fissile material, or the ingredients of nuclear weapons, within a year, and within another year could have weaponized that material. But I’ve spent enough time in the intelligence community to pay very careful attention to words like “could.” We have not been able to document any Iranian production or enrichment of uranium above a 20% level. 90% is required for fissile material.

CLARK: Does the IAEA, though, have complete access to all of Iran’s facilities?

THIELMANN: It does not have complete access and that is exactly the rub. The issue is can the International Atomic Energy Agency assure the UN membership that Iran has no nuclear weapons program? So, right now we are in a dispute between the international community and Iran on making the Iranian nuclear program transparent enough to dispel suspicions that Iran has a parallel nuclear weapons program.

CLARK: Just how wide is the gap between Iran’s current lack of transparency and any perception that they want nuclear weapons? Is it one of these cases where Iran needs to prove that it doesn’t want it because people are just tending to think the worst at this point?

THIELMANN: I think the weight of expert opinion is that Iran, at the very least, wants to develop the capability to be able to acquire nuclear weapons rapidly. And also after the findings of, not just the US, but various foreign intelligence services, that Iran itself for some 18 years had a clandestine nuclear weapons program that was only halted, the US believes, in the fall of 2003. So, the current focus is on whether or not Iran has resumed that clandestine nuclear weapons program.

CLARK: So, I’m wondering then, bringing it back to the announcement today that Iran is going to begin construction on a third nuclear enrichment plant. Does that announcement only confirm assumptions that Iran wants a nuclear weapons program down the road?

THIELMANN: Well, it certainly does confirm it for many people. If the announcement were made in the way that announcements should be made, that is, information on where it planned to construct, providing the blueprints of that construction, an explanation that showed how this plan fitted in with Iran’s overall nuclear energy development program, that would be a major step toward addressing suspicions that these plants are going to be developed at clandestine locations and would be used to make highly-enriched uranium for nuclear weapons purposes.

CLARK: Greg Thielmann is a former director at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He’s now a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Good to speak with you.

THIELMANN: Thank you for the opportunity.

Iran’s nuclear defiance

The World — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:15:21 +0000

Download MP3
Iran’s tough stance on its nuclear program got a little tougher today. Iran’s President said today his country will not agree to talks on the issue if the UN Security Council imposes new sanctions. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also warned that a nuclear fuel deal that Turkey and Brazil brokered was a one-time opportunity that it would not be repeated. Stephen Kinzer was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times for many years. His latest book is Reset: Iran, Turkey and America’s Future. Marco Werman talks with him. Download MP3

BBC coverage
Stephen Kinzer on Iran, Turkey and the U.S. (Feb)
book info

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. Iran’s tough stance on its nuclear program got tougher today. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country won’t agree to talks on the issue if the U.N. Security Council imposes new sanctions. Then, the Council announced it will vote on fresh sanctions tomorrow. They’d include tighter financial restrictions and the expansion of a limited arms embargo. Stephen Kinzer was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times for many years. His latest book is “Reset: Iran, Turkey and America’s Future”. Mr. Kinzer joins us in our studio. Do you think that there’s a risk that there’s maybe too much attention paid to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says. Sometimes it feels like this is just pro forma trash talk like in game three or four of the Lakers-Celtics series.

STEPHEN KINZER: You’re exactly and I’d even go a step further. I think that Ahmadinejad is very aware that many Iranians don’t like him and that he’s unpopular in the Middle East as well. He knows that there is one thing that could make him a hero to all Iranians, and that would be to be attacked by Israel or the United States. That would then turn him into the ultimate martyr. And I think he’s calculating what I can do, what can I say to be as outrageous as possible and see if I can provoke someone to bomb me. That’s the way the entire nation of Iran will gather behind me. There’s no other way. And I think Ahmadinejad is calculating this very carefully. We are playing into his hands by reporting every wink of his eyebrows and trying to play him up as this ultimate demon and I think in the long run Iran’s strategic interests actually coincide more with America’s than they conflict with America’s. And in addition, Iranian society, which is very vibrant and very open and democratic, has much more in common with American society than the societies of any of the countries with which we are now aligned.

WERMAN: What’s the primary way you think Iran’s interests coincide with American’s interests?

KINZER: The most important goal for Iran is a stable neighborhood. That should also be the most important goal for Israel. These are two countries, that in that sense are parallel and they are also parallel in the sense that they have a lot of enemies in the neighborhood and a lot of enemies in the world. Nonetheless, it’s wrong to push these countries into a corner and stigmatize them and make them feel friendless and angry. Somehow they need to be brought in to a kind of new regional security architecture in which stability in the region, which is the ultimate goal both of those countries in the United States, could possibly be assured.

WERMAN: Well one area where the world seemed to kind of pump helium into Ahmadinejad was just after last year’s contested Presidential election in Iran. When you were in Iran recently, Stephen Kinzer, did you get a sense that the day of this anniversary, this coming Saturday, is going to be marked by protest?

KINZER: I think there will be protests, but there’s no doubt in my mind that the momentum of the green movement, as the protests were called, has definitely slowed down. I talked to dozens of ordinary Iranians on the street and the sense I got from all of them was, we tried something last year, it didn’t work, and now we’re just going to go on with our lives. There’s no point in us getting arrested and beaten, that’s what’s going to happen if we go out and protest. There will be change, but it’s not going to come soon. Now in a country with 25 centuries of history, which is ten times more than the United States has, that’s a very understandable attitude. Nonetheless, in a way it kind of conflicts with the American attitude. We have the sense that everything has to happen right away. We also have a sense in America that all problems ultimately have a solution, even if they’re complex. You just break them down into pieces and you can find a way out. Iranians have a different approach to life. They would say that many problems don’t have quick solutions and some problems have no solutions at all. So there’s a psychological as well as a political gap here.

WERMAN: Now Iran may have a role in the latest crisis with the flotilla of activists headed for Gaza, this boat that Israel took over last week killing nine activists. The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said this past weekend that Iran could use its Navy to send humanitarian assistance to Gaza. What do you make of that?

KINZER: I don’t take it too seriously. I think right now the Egyptians have opened up their own crossing into Gaza. They are allowing a lot of relief supplies in. That takes some of the pressure off and therefore the theater of flotillas trying to land in occupied Gaza has diminished in the impact and importance that it has. I think the flotilla incident, I think it really was a reaction what was happening particularly in Gaza. When you’re sitting in that part of the world, and you are watching on television every single day, as we in the west do not, what is going on in Gaza? And every episode is replayed a hundred times in your mind and on your TV screens, naturally anger builds up and that was what was behind Prime Minister Erdogan’s blow up in Davos earlier this year. That friction between Turkey and Israel has been largely focused on Gaza. So I don’t think this is necessarily a problem that’s afflicting the entire policy apparatus in that region. I think it’s more about Gaza and if the Gaza situation can somehow be eased, I think some of this tension we’re seeing in recent weeks will also ease.

WERMAN: Stephen Kinzer’s latest books is “Rest: Iran, Turkey and America’s Future”. Stephen thanks so much for coming in.

KINZER: Great to be with you.

Iran signs nuclear fuel deal with Turkey

The World — Mon, 17 May 2010 20:39:37 +0000

Download MP3
Years of diplomatic deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program may have reached a breakthrough. Iran says it will ship low-enriched uranium to Turkey. In return, higher-enriched uranium will be sent back to Iran. The proposal is being met with applause and skepticism. The World’s Jason Margolis will have more in today’s show.

BBC coverage
Ahmadinejad speaks at UN nuclear conference
Iran and the nuclear issue

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World. Years of diplomatic deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program may have reached a breakthrough today. Iran says it will ship low enriched uranium to Turkey. In return, Iran will receive higher enriched uranium to use in a medical research reactor in Tehran. That fuel would still be enriched well below the level needed to manufacture a nuclear weapon. The deal was brokered after 18 hours of negotiations between leaders from Iran, Turkey and Brazil. But it’s far from certain that the deal will satisfy the international community. The World’s Jason Margolis has more.

JASON MARGOLIS: The question is why now? Why is Iran agreeing to this deal? That’s what the west is wondering. After all, the agreement announced today mirrors a deal negotiated in Geneva last fall. President Obama endorsed that plan, but Iran backed away from the proposal. Brazil’s President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva suggested a deal is being reached now because of the people doing the negotiating.

INTERPRETER: We’ve established a relationship of trust. Politics isn’t possible without trust. I think we have secured a great achievement that was a great victory for diplomacy.

MARGOLIS: That’s high faluting talk for a bad deal, argues Nicolas Burns at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He says Brazil and Turkey have negotiated an agreement contrary to the interests of the United States, Europe and even Russia.

NICOLAS BURNS: This proposal does not address the real concern about Iran. It’s still enriching uranium without the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

MARGOLIS: As to the question why now? Burns argues that the game has changed since a deal was proposed last fall. Iran has more raw materials.

BURNS: President Obama and President Sarkozy had announced last autumn an arrangement with Iran whereby up to 70% of Iran’s low enriched uranium would be shipped out of Iran. That would have made it impossible for Iran to have continued to enrich sufficient material to produce a nuclear weapon. This agreement, as far as the press reports are concerned, and I’m just looking at the press reports, would only take about 50% of the low enriched uranium out of Iran leaving a lot of material in the country to potentially enrich to a weapons grade level, and to give Iran the prospect of continuing its nuclear program.

MARGOLIS: Iran’s foreign minister said this new deal should lead to cooperation and avoid confrontation. In other words, Iran should not be subject to further U.N. sanctions. The President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy said the new deal does not change Europe’s position about Iran’s nuclear program.

HERMAN VAN ROMPUY: Iran has so far refused to engage in serious discussions on reasonable concerns related to its nuclear program. Iran needs to reassure the international community about the intentions behind its nuclear program.

MARGOLIS: Critics of today’s deal say Iran is simply stalling, trying to avoid sanctions while also attempting to win propaganda points. Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister, Matan Vilnai, cut to the chase. He said Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons. That Iran is taking steps that are far from benign as the President of Brazil tells it. Iran is supposed to send details of today’s proposal to the IAEA within a week. The White House is taking a wait and see approach, but stressed today that Iran has repeatedly failed to live up to its own commitments. For The World, I’m Jason Margolis.