The sanctions involve an immediate ban on all new oil contracts with Iran, while existing contracts will be honored until July 1.

Tehran denies that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons and says talks and not sanctions are the only way to resolve the dispute.

The EU currently buys about 20 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

(Graphic: BBC)

Meanwhile, the Pentagon said the US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as well as a British Royal Navy frigate and a French warship, have passed through the Straits of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf without incident in the wake of Iranian threats to block the trade route.

Under the new deal, EU governments are expected to stop signing new contracts with Iran when the ban comes into place – which could be as soon as this week, Reuters news agency reports.

All existing contracts will have to be phased out by July 1.

More from the BBC

(Map: BBC)

Koji Minoura is a paleontologist – he studies fossils and rocks – but he’s become something of a celebrity in Japan, for an unfortunate reason.

Long before last year’s massive earthquake and tsunami, Minoura had warned that just such a disaster was in the offing.

Minoura works at Tohoku University, in Sendai. Sitting in his cramped office, where all of the books fell off his shelves during the earthquake, he explains that the scientific work that made him famous began with the study of historical documents.

He was intrigued by an ancient poem. It refers with sadness to “the famed waves of Sue-No-Matsuyama.”

Minoura wondered if the poem referred to an ancient earthquake and tsunami. So he dug through old records and found that in July of 869 AD a huge quake and tsunami hit Northeast Japan. It’s known as the Jogan event.

“The record shows the tsunami hit the area and killed more than a thousand people,” he says. “But people quickly forgot about the tsunami.”

Minoura decided to look for geological evidence of that ancient disaster.

In the late 1980s, he visited the area around Sendai and dug into a rice paddy to see what the tsunami might have left behind.

He found what he was looking for – a layer of ocean sediment clearly visible in bright contrast to the rest of the gray-black dirt.

“This is the trace of the tsunami,” he says, displaying a photograph. “My age measurement showed that this is the sediment from the 869 Jogan tsunami.”

The ocean water had reached two and a half miles inland.

Minoura’s research didn’t stop there. He dug deeper into the soil and found more marine layers – proof of similar giant tsunamis every thousand years or so, meaning Northeast Japan was overdue for another one.

Over the next 20 years, Minoura would publish his findings in major scientific journals.

Yet Japan was ill prepared for the massive tsunami that struck on March 11, 2011. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was swamped by the waves, causing a nuclear disaster.

Hiro Hasegawa, a spokesman for the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which owns the plant, says the company was aware of Minoura’s research and considered making modifications to protect the plant.

“We were in the process of considering that,” he says, “but this accident occurred during that process.”

Paleontologist Koji Minoura believes his warnings were not taken seriously.

“I regret it, but no one paid attention to my thesis,” he says.

Since the tsunami, people have paid attention to Minoura. Bloggers have picked up on his work. The Japanese news media have covered it extensively. Minoura now has the attention of the government and is regularly invited to speak before important groups.

“Yes,” Minoura says, acknowledging the attention. “But it’s too late.”

Watch Nuclear Aftershocks Preview on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

World News Videos by NewsLook

Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

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.

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: 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.”

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

World News Videos by NewsLook

Read tweets about Iran

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.

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.

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.

What impact will new sanctions have on the country and can Iran’s threats about blocking the strait of Hormuz be taken seriously?

Anchor Lisa Mullins talks to Iran expert Dr. Trita Parsi.

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.

Lisa Mullins: Today, Iran threatened once again to stop ships from moving through the strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. That’s an unsettling prospect. At least one sixth of the world’s oil flows through the strait. But today, Iran’s navy chief called closing it very easy for Iranian naval forces. A spokesperson for the US Fifth Fleet responded, the spokesperson said that the United States will not allow any disruption of traffic in the strait of Hormuz. Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran. Can you tell us, Iran says it may close this vital oil trade route that is the strait of Hormuz if the US imposes more sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program. How credible do you think the threat really is?

Dr. Trita Parsi: I have to say I think it is largely bluster, but at some stage if the west continues with sanctions and particularly if some form of an oil embargo is imposed on Iran, then Iranians don’t have as much to lose from actually taking this step. Right now if they were to close the strait of Hormuz they would also shutdown their own oil exports, but if much of their oil exports already have been taken off the market because of an oil embargo, then Iran has less incentives not to play this card.

Mullins: Well, it has less incentive, but does Iran really want a war?

Parsi: Well, the thing is if there is an oil embargo that is imposed on Iran that is in and of itself viewed by Iran and there’s some support in international law, that is already an act of war, so that would be an Iranian response to a declaration of war.

Mullins: How is that considered an act of war in any sense because there certainly have been sanctions against Iran before. Iran has made threats before. Iran even if it is not to sell oil to the US or Europe could sell oil to China or Russia instead of the West.

Parsi: Any type of naval embargoes have to be approved by the UN Security Council to actually have the force of international law behind it. If it is not then it is considered an act of war. The current form of oil embargo that the US is discussing is not gonna get support in the Security Council as you mentioned because of the opposition from Russia and China. What we’re seeing is that we are in a confrontational dynamic. Both sides are trying to maximize the amount of pressure put on each other, and at some point we’re gonna lose sight of what the actual issue was, and we’re just trying to escalate further in order not to lose face. So I think there is unfortunately, a significant risk that this will get out of control and actually lead to an open warfare between the two countries.

Mullins: How do you think it’s gonna spiral out of control when so many parties here have so much at stake, particularly Iran itself.

Parsi: Right now there’s almost no communication between the different governments and as Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had warned right before he left office, he said that this lack of communication is very dangerous because it gives way for misperceptions. And when you misperceive you miscalculate. And when you miscalculate you escalate and suddenly there you have it, you have a war that you never intended to have.

Mullins: Well, not yet though. What are the aspects of diplomacy that could be exerted right now?

Parsi: Well, diplomacy is not going to be easy, nor is it gonna be quick. The diplomacy that the Obama administration pursued in 2009 essentially only lasted about two and a half months maximum. And there were only two, two and a half meetings directly with the Iranians. That’s not diplomacy and certainly not an exhaustion of diplomacy. But the political space to pursue that option does not exist in Tehran nor does it exist in Washington, and it’s forcing leaders to abide by the already very constrained political landscapes that they’re in and pursue escalation rather than pursuing conflict resolution.

Mullins: Just to be clear, what could once again, what could be done right now in terms of diplomacy that would prevent confrontation?

Parsi: Under best scenario you would start negotiations right away and negotiations would not be limited just to the nuclear issue. The nuclear issue is probably the toughest issue to resolve because the two sides have dug themselves in so deeply in their positions, but there are other areas, whether it is regional security, Afghanistan or other areas in which conversations and diplomacy can begin. Diplomacy is very much about reducing mistrust. And when you reduce mistrust and you increase transparency information about the other side, that in and of itself is a huge favor towards making sure that there are no accidental escalations.

Mullins: That’s Dr. Trita Parsi, author of A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran.

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.

Two new reports that came out in the past week prompted us to call up Geoff and get an update on the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The conversation led us to the issue of radiation release, and what is known about how soil and crops in Tohoku have fared.

Here’s Geoff’s view.
Food radiation by The World

Iranian activists published an open letter to their government this week, calling on it to suspend uranium enrichment.

The text of the letter warned that the country’s nuclear ambitions would “set the stage for war” and that the people of Iran would “have to pay the price.”

Iranian journalist Nazila Fathi says the letter reflects the growing anxiety in Iran about the possibility of a military attack.

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: Officials in Iran continue to dodge questions about their nuclear program, but the United Nations’ Nuclear Agency said recently that there is evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. This week Iranian dissidents published an open letter to the government in Tehran. The letter calls on Iran to suspend Uranium enrichment. It also warns that the country’s nuclear ambitions would set the stage for war. Iranian journalist, Nazila Fathi is based in the U.S. She says the letter reflects a growing anxiety among Iranians everywhere about the possibility of a military attack against Iran.

Nazila Fathi: The opposition groups outside the country, they are very divided, but they are all unanimous over one thing: that any kind of external threat would help radicals to solidify their power.

Werman: So this letter came primarily from dissidents outside the country. Is that right?

Fathi: Yes, mostly.

Werman: Now, inside the country, I mean obviously no one wants to see a nuclear conflict, how widespread do you that opinions in this letter are in Iran among Iranian citizens?

Fathi: Well I think it’s very widespread and this is not the first time that people have expressed their concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. When I was in Iran in 2007, there were debates on radio, on the public radio where political scientists talked about this openly. They talked about whether the costs were worth the risks that the country was facing, whether any kind of external threat was worth the nuclear energy.

Werman: Nazila, I want to ask you about a couple of other things that are sparking up anxiety in Iran. There’s a huge funeral this week for one of the founders of Iran’s missile program and more than a dozen revolutionary guard members who died in an explosion last weekend. Tell us about this blast at the military base and why it’s led to so much speculation in Tehran.

Fathi: First of all, the whole city, and Tehran is a very large city, was rocked with this thunderous sound of the explosion. A lot of people who lived in Tehran, they thought the city has come under attack, maybe they thought this was the attack by Israel or maybe it was a nuclear test and in the government, the only news that it gave out was there had been an explosion at an ammunition depot, which didn’t make much sense because the sound of it was just thunderous and then the regime, they closed of the streets. They didn’t let reporters get to the explosion site. Even people who were injured, they were not taken to regular hospitals. It seemed that there were that they didn’t want these people to speak to people, to talk about what happened there, and then of course the godfather of the country’s missile program had been there and it raised questions. What was he doing there if they were just moving ammunition? And now there are reports saying that perhaps there was a kind of coverts plan behind it. Maybe the Israelis were behind a sabotage to warn Iranians.

Werman: So it’s that blast, it’s the mysterious reaction to it that’s prompting all this speculation and this, after a week when a new U.N. report offering additional evidence that Iran may be on the brink of getting nuclear weapons come out. That report can’t have helped the anxiety growing on the ground after this blast over the weekend.

Fathi: Not at all. I mean it’s just one accident after another accident. Just this past summer, another young man who was working for the nuclear program was assassinated. Then you have this explosion. The day after that, the son of head of Iran’s revolutionary guards during the eight years of war was killed mysteriously in a hotel room in Dubai. I mean just too many accidents that they sense.

Werman: For the people of Tehran, what does it feel like is going on right now? What are they telling you?

Fathi: In some ways people are worried and in some ways, if the government does get away with the capability, they will be proud about it, but at this point they are really concerned about the risks and the possibility of a confrontation. I mean let’s not forget that Iranian people withdrew from the streets two years ago after the uprising because they didn’t want to get caught in another bloodbath and the memories of the revolution in 1979 and then eight years of war are very much alive in the minds of the people and the worst thing that they would imagine now is another military confrontation with Israel.

Werman: Former New York Times reporter, Nazila Fathi. Thanks so much for your time.

Fathi: Oh, thank you very much.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.