Currently Browsing

Posts Tagged ‘ Nuclear enrichment ’

  • 25 September 2009
  • Posted By Artin
  • 0 Comments
  • Events in Iran, Nuclear file, Sanctions, US-Iran War

Insight into Iranian Government’s Thinking

Iranian government media are quoting Mehdi Mohammadi, a “nuclear expert” inside Iran, in statements that are likely to come to reflect the official government line.

Here are snippets of IRNA’s article entitled “The News of Iran’s new Enrichment Installations has left the West Confounded:”

“In the past years, the Westerners have repeatedly said that Iran has secretly hidden its work in Isfahan, Natanz, and Arak. In reality Iran notified the IAEA of Isfahan in 2000, 4 years before the making that site fully operational, Iran announced Natanz to the IAEA in February 2003, exactly 180 days before introducing radioactive materials, and Iran has given IAEA inspectors access many times to Arak, where radioactive material has not been introduced and which is not subject to safeguards.”

Mohammadi said: “The Westerners have been completely surprised. They expected that by announcing their deal with the Russians – which has not been completed yet – on the threshold of October negotiations, they would successfully bluff that they are ready for new, harsh sanctions, and that they would embarrass Iran. Iran, by announcing its construction of new uranium installations, showed the West that it can create surprise on its own, and left no doubt as to who has the initiative in negotiations, and who needs to compromise.”

He concluded by declaring: “The construction of these installations proves that all paths for stopping Iran’s nuclear program have reached a deadlock, and that the West has done nothing here except invent some new material for newspapers.”

Note: this translation is courtesy of the New York Times Company. Please do not use without asking for permission.

Mohammadi: The News of Iran’.s new Enrichment Installations has left the West Confounded

Mehdi Mohammadi, an expert on nuclear energy, has emphasized that the controversy of officials and news media in the West about the new nuclear energy installations of Iran have two goals: (1) Polluting the atmosphere and (2) Making it seem like the West has failed in stopping Iran’s nuclear program

In respodnign to IRNA’s question about why the West has chosen to accuse Iran of hiding this nuclear facility, Mohammadi said: “The Westerners know that secrecy is not currently a part of this project and was never a part of this project.”

He continued, “Yesterday the IAEA announced in an official message that it was aware that Iran was building new nuclear enrichment facilities, and Iran had told the IAEA about this situation before the official stamp was put on the message.”

He continued, “Iran is obligated under the law to inform the IAEA 180 days before the introduction of radioactive materials into nuclear installations.  Iran declared the new installations to the IAEA before its legally required timeframe, and the Westerners know this better than anyone.”

Mohammadi continued: “Of course, this has been true for all other uclear installations inside Iran. In the past years, the Westerners have repeatedly said that Iran has secretly hidden its work in Isfahan, Natanz, and Arak, while in reality Iran had notified the IAEA of Isfahan in 2000, 4 years before the making that site fully operational, Iran announced Natanz to the IAEA in February 2003, exactly 180 days before introducing radioactive materials there, and Iran has given IAEA inspectors access many times to Arak, where radioactive material has not been introduced and which is not subject to safeguards.”

This expert alluded to the strategic issues, implying that “The Nervous Anxiety of the West is Understandable, said: “The Westerners have been completely surprised. They expected that by announcing their deal with the Russians – which has not been completed yet – on the threshold of October negotiations would be a successful bluff that they are ready for new, harsh sanctions, they would embarrass Iran. Iran, by announcing its construction of new uranium installations, showed the West that it can create surprise on its own, left no doubt as to who has the initiative in these declarations, and who needs to compromise.”

He concluded by declaring: “The construction of these installations proves that all paths for stopping Iran’s nuclear program have reached a deadlock, and that the West has done nothing here except invent some new material for newspapers.”

Something wicked this way comes…

Last week the Washington Post ran an OpEd by two former Senators, Chuck Robb (D-VA) and Dan Coats (R-ID).  In it, they endorsed sustained aggressive action in future U.S. dealings with Iran, saying that Iran must be prevented, using any means necessary, from not only obtaining nuclear weapons, but even “the ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon.”

They were part of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s national security task force on Iran which also includes current Obama advisor to Middle Eastern Affairs, Dennis Ross.  It’s well known that Ross is positioning himself for a seat in an eventual Obama administration–possibly special envoy to Iran.  So then why is he stating in an Israeli newspaper that “Today Iran is a nuclear power – it doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet, but in 2001 it was not yet able to convert uranium or uranium gas, it didn’t have a single centrifuge. Now it’s stockpiling highly enriched uranium.”?

Alleging that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium (HEU) is a pretty big deal.  Mohammed Elbaradai, and the IAEA have both declared that no HEU exists in Iran or within it’s nuclear program.  In the world of nuclear inspections, there are few greater certainties than this.  For me, this raises some questions about Ross’ qualifications for a high-level position regarding Iran.  Does he really believe he knows more about the existence of uranium in Iran than the IAEA inspectors? What is the drive behind making such a claim? One has to wonder what Senator Obama thinks of all this…

  • 22 July 2008
  • Posted By Farid Zareie
  • 2 Comments
  • Diplomacy, Iran War related legislation, Sanctions

Patience is a virtue

This past Saturday, Ambassador William Burns traveled to Geneva, Switzerland to meet with one of Iran’s top nuclear negotiators, Saeed Jalili. This meeting was the first since 1979 between a top US diplomat and an Iranian representative. So evidently, this was a tremendous breakthrough in US-Iran relations – a relationship that has been almost non-existent under the current Bush Administration. However, even with this great first step, people still appear to be disappointed. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and many other news sources reported that the Americans were not completely pleased with their meeting.

Sign the Petition

 

7,349 signatures

Tell Google: Stop playing Persian Gulf name games!

May 14, 2012
Larry Page
Chief Executive Officer
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043

Dear Mr. Page:

It has come to our attention that Google has begun omitting the title of the Persian Gulf from its Google Maps application. This is a disconcerting development given the undisputed historic and geographic precedent of the name Persian Gulf, and the more recent history of opening up the name to political, ethnic, and territorial disputes. However unintentionally, in adopting this practice, Google is participating in a dangerous effort to foment tensions and ethnic divisions in the Middle East by politicizing the region’s geographic nomenclature. Members of the Iranian-American community are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts, particularly at a time when regional tensions already have been pushed to the brink and threaten to spill over into conflict. As the largest grassroots organization in the Iranian-American community, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) calls on Google to not allow its products to become propaganda tools and to immediately reinstate the historically accurate, apolitical title of “Persian Gulf” in all of its informational products, including Google Maps.

Historically, the name “Persian Gulf” is undisputed. The Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy referencing in his writings the “Aquarius Persico.” The Romans referred to the "Mare Persicum." The Arabs historically call the body of water, "Bahr al-Farsia." The legal precedent of this nomenclature is also indisputable, with both the United Nations and the United States Board of Geographic Names confirming the sole legitimacy of the term “Persian Gulf.” Agreement on this matter has also been codified by the signatures of all six bordering Arab countries on United Nations directives declaring this body of water to be the Persian Gulf.

But in the past century, and particularly at times of escalating tensions, there have been efforts to exploit the name of the Persian Gulf as a political tool to foment ethnic division. From colonial interests to Arab interests to Iranian interests, the opening of debate regarding the name of the Persian Gulf has been a recent phenomenon that has been exploited for political gain by all sides. Google should not enable these politicized efforts.

In the 1930s, British adviser to Bahrain Sir Charles Belgrave proposed to rename the Persian Gulf, “Arabian Gulf,” a proposal that was rejected by the British Colonial and Foreign offices. Two decades later, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company resurrected the term during its dispute with Mohammad Mossadegh, the Iranian Prime Minister whose battle with British oil interests would end in a U.S.-sponsored coup d'état that continues to haunt U.S.-Iran relations. In the 1960s, the title “Arabian Gulf” became central to propaganda efforts during the Pan-Arabism era aimed at exploiting ethnic divisions in the region to unite Arabs against non-Arabs, namely Iranians and Israelis. The term was later employed by Saddam Hussein to justify his aims at territorial expansion. Osama Bin Laden even adopted the phrase in an attempt to rally Arab populations by emphasizing ethnic rivalries in the Middle East.

We have serious concerns that Google is now playing into these efforts of geographic politicization. Unfortunately, this is not the first time Google has stirred controversy on this topic. In 2008, Google Earth began including the term “Arabian Gulf” in addition to Persian Gulf as the name for the body of water. NIAC and others called on you then to stop using this ethnically divisive propaganda term, but to no avail. Instead of following the example of organizations like the National Geographic Society, which in 2004 used term “Arabian Gulf” in its maps but recognized the error and corrected it, Google has apparently decided to allow its informational products to become politicized.

Google should rectify this situation and immediately include the proper name for the Persian Gulf in Google Maps and all of its informational products. The exclusion of the title of the Persian Gulf diminishes your applications as informational tools, and raises questions about the integrity and accuracy of information provided by Google.

We strongly urge you to stay true to Google’s mission – “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” – without distorting or politicizing that information. We look forward to an explanation from you regarding the recent removal of the Persian Gulf name from Google Maps and call on you to immediately correct this mistake.

Sincerely,

[signature]

Share this with your friends: