Iranian nuclear chief advises West to use “golden opportunity”

Iranian nuclear chief advises West to use “golden opportunity”(Taz).

The West is better to use the golden opportunity in the nuclear talks with Iran, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) Ali Akbar Salehi said, Iranian IRIB news agency reported on Feb. 8.

Salehi made the remarks on the sidelines of commemoration ceremony for Iran's nuclear martyrs on Feb. 7 evening.

"The opposing side should be rational while dealing with Iran, and also consider regional and global interests," Salehi noted.

Speaking about the criticizing statements on the Geneva nuclear deal, Salehi said that Iran didn't lose anything with the deal, as the country's nuclear program has not been halted.

Iran and the P5+1 reached a nuclear agreement on November 24, 2013. Iran has agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities for six months in return for sanctions relief. Iran and the P5+1 group have agreed to implement the agreement starting from Jan. 20.

Under the agreement, six major powers agreed to give Iran access to $4.2 billion in revenues blocked overseas if it carries out the deal, which offers sanctions relief in exchange for steps to curb the Iranian nuclear program.

Salehi advised the West not to go for adventurism with Iran, as the Islamic Republic is fully conscious and united.

He also said that Iran's current level of 20-percent enriched uranium reserves fully responds to the country's domestic demands for the next 5 years.

"Iran in the first place wasn't interested in producing 20-percent enriched uranium, however the other side's conditions, which contradicted Iran's national interests, led to us producing it," Salehi explained.(Yup now they need 60% for their 'Atomic submarines).

The U.S. and its Western allies suspect Iran of developing a nuclear weapon - something that Iran denies. The Islamic Republic has on numerous occasions stated that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons, using nuclear energy for medical researches instead.Hmmmm.....First try to fool them, if that doesn't work try threats.

Arak heavy water reactor will remain intact - AEOI head.

Arak heavy water reactor will remain intact - AEOI head.(Taz).

Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi said that Arak heavy water reactor will remain as a heavy water reactor and only possibility of some technical changes will be taken into consideration, IRNA reported.

Speaking on the sidelines of a commemoration ceremony for Iran's nuclear martyrs, Salehi said on Friday that the West has brought up the issue of plutonium, which does not have a serious and technical base.
"We can technically do some work to take the pretext from them"

In an interview on Thursday, Salehi had said that Iran can remove some concerns by creating certain changes in Arak heavy water reactor.

AIPAC demonstrates muscle, then partially retreats on Iran.

AIPAC demonstrates muscle, then partially retreats on Iran.(Jpost).

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee sent a message on Thursday to those who doubt its influence in Washington.

On Monday, the New York Times declared a victory for US President Barack Obama over AIPAC, the largest pro-Israel lobby in the United States. AIPAC has aggressively pushed for legislation in Congress that holds diplomats in Geneva accountable— by AIPAC's standards— in their efforts to negotiate a settlement to the longstanding nuclear crisis with Iran.

Progress has been slow— "blunted," according to the Times report. But with a strongly-worded letter from the Republican Senate caucus, and with a forceful speech from Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Robert Menendez on the chamber floor on Thursday, AIPAC is pushing back, and reasserting its influence on Capitol Hill.

Dozens of Senate Republicans sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday night demanding a vote on Menendez's bill, which would trigger additional sanctions tools against Iran should Obama’s efforts at diplomacy fail to end the longstanding nuclear impasse.

Their letter aimed to call attention to a significant shift in the dynamic in Congress on Iran policy, one of the sole bipartisan issues left on the Hill.

That bipartisanship is in jeopardy, the 42 Republican members said, as Reid – following the lead of the president and an apparent majority of Democrats who oppose the bill at this time – has given no indication he has any plans to bring the legislation to a vote.

The letter called the moment a “crossroads” in the two parties’ unified effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capacity.


Bucking Obama's veto threat, Menendez said on Thursday that the bill should be seen as a "win" by the White House, urging his colleagues to support the bill and warning against a rare partisan fracture on the longstanding national security issue.

But for the first time, Menendez raised doubt that now was the "appropriate time" for a vote on the bill.

"I hope that we will not find ourselves in a partisan process trying to force a vote on a national security matter before its appropriate time," he said.

"Troubling signs have already appeared" since an interim deal between Iran and world powers took effect last month, the Senate Democrat said, that lead many in the upper chamber of Congress to remain distrustful of Iran and its intentions in negotiations over its expansive nuclear program.

"The Administration and the Senate have a common interest– to prevent a nuclear-weapons-capable-Iran," Menendez (D-NJ) said. "We have differences as to how to achieve it. We have an obligation to debate those differences and concerns. But I will not yield on a principled difference."
AIPAC put out a statement commending Menendez's speech shortly after he left the floor of the Senate on Thursday afternoon.

"We agree with the Chairman that stopping the Iranian nuclear program should rest on bipartisan support," AIPAC's statement read, "and that there should not be a vote at this time on the measure."

That position marks a shift: before Menendez's speech, AIPAC officials were insisting the lobby would continue to build support for the bill, and that it expected a floor vote before the expiration of the interim nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Plan of Action.

Senior Cleric Khatami Slams Obama’s Remarks on Iran in State of Union Speech.

Senior Cleric Khatami Slams Obama’s Remarks on Iran in State of Union Speech.(Fars).

Tehran’s provisional Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ahmad Khatami blasted US President Barack Obama’s unrealistic remarks on Iran, reiterating that Tehran has developed a peaceful nuclear technology and has never been after the production of atomic weapons.

Addressing a large and fervent congregation of the people on Tehran University campus on Friday, Ayatollah Khatami said, “How the US officials are pleased with this lie while Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei has reiterated that we are not after making atomic bomb and he has even issued a religious verdict (fatwa) in this regard.”

He pointed to the recent remarks of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei who underlined the necessity for keeping vigilant against the enemies’ display of superficial and unreal moderation, stressing that their true hostile nature was shown in the recent talks between Tehran and the world powers.

Ayatollah Khamenei said the nuclear talks proved the US hostility towards Iran and Islam, and added, “The enemy’s smile shouldn’t be taken seriously.”

Addressing thousands of people from the Central province of Qom, Ayatollah Khamenei said victory will be surely achieved through resistance.

“The enemies thought in vain that they could compel Iran to hold talks under sanctions,” he said, and added that Iran has not come to the negotiating table due to the pressure of the sanctions as Iranians are a resistant nation.

The leader said the enemies think that they have come to know the Iranian nation, but they are wrong.

The leader said Iran is negotiating with the West only because it has discerned it to be necessary, and stressed that Tehran has accepted to negotiate with the US only on the nuclear issue and not on bilateral ties, reminding that Tehran and Washington are still enemies at the end of the day.

“… we have already expressed our readiness to negotiate with the Satan (the US) on specific issues if necessary.”

On Thursday, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham slammed Obama’s remarks, and said President Obama’s statement stems from his wrong perception of Iran’s commitment to its merely peaceful indigenous nuclear program.

The spokeswoman said the US considers its most important achievement preventing Iran to access nuclear weapon, while that’s a totally wrong claim, because Iran has never intended to have nuclear weapon.

Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, while they have never presented any corroborative evidence to substantiate their allegations. Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Several years ago Ayatollah Khamenei issued a Fatwa (religious decree) to ban the possession, production and use of the nuclear weapons.

Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Despite the rules enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entitling every member state, including Iran, to the right of uranium enrichment, Tehran is now under four rounds of UN Security Council sanctions and western embargos for turning down West’s calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment.

Tehran has dismissed West’s demands as politically tainted and illogical, stressing that sanctions and pressures merely consolidate Iranians’ national resolve to continue the path.

The Islamic Republic says that it considers its nuclear case closed as it has come clean of IAEA’s questions and suspicions about its past nuclear activities.


Political observers believe that the United States has remained at loggerheads with Iran mainly over the independent and home-grown nature of Tehran’s nuclear technology, which gives the Islamic Republic the potential to turn into a world power and a role model for the other third-world countries. 

Washington has laid much pressure on Iran to make it give up the most sensitive and advanced part of the technology, which is uranium enrichment, a process used for producing nuclear fuel for power plants.

Obama’s SOTU Claims on Iran Debunked Same Day at Congressional Hearings; Iran Agreement Text Being Withheld.

Obama’s SOTU Claims on Iran Debunked Same Day at Congressional Hearings; Iran Agreement Text Being Withheld.(AndrewBostom).

Just hours before President Obama delivered his State of the Union address (1/28/14), which included remarks (analyzed here) lauding how the P5 +1 agreement “halted” Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, a joint Congressional hearing demonstrated otherwise. 

Gregory S. Jones, a Senior Researcher at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center testified that “the great flaw in the deal” was “it permits Iran to retain centrifuge enrichment.” He added, pointedly,

This fact has been denied by Secretary of State Kerry but the Joint Plan of Action says in two separate places that the follow-on Comprehensive Solution would “involve a mutually defined enrichment programme….” Note that the text says “would,” not “might” or “could.” That the Comprehensive Solution will permit Iranian centrifuge enrichment was later confirmed by the Obama administration national security spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan who said, “We are prepared to negotiate a strictly limited enrichment program.”

Jones’ written testimony concluded,

The only reasonable negotiating position is for the U.S. and the P5+1 to insist that Iran stops all uranium enrichment and dismantles its centrifuge enrichment facilities. President Obama and others have recognized that this would be the best outcome from the negotiations with Iran but have said that it is an unrealistic demand since Iran would never agree.

The hearings also revealed that the White House was refusing to release the full written text of the agreement with Iran. House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) member Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.) complained,Hmmm....A Turkish Bazaar backroom deal, Obama knows the Iranians will build the bomb and he lets them!Read the full story here.

Related: 

Iran's 'FINAL DEAL': Disabling Instead of Dismantling ?

Iran's 'FINAL DEAL': Disabling Instead of Dismantling ?

Iran's 'FINAL DEAL':  Disabling Instead of Dismantling?HT: Nukes of Hazard.

Last week, in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria in Davos, Switzerland, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani stated that Iran will not destroy any of its approximately 19,000 centrifuges, roughly 10,000 of which are currently being used to enrich uranium.

Critics of the ongoing diplomatic process unsurprisingly jumped on Rouhani's remarks as evidence that Iran is negotiating in bad faith and will never take the steps necessary to ensure that its program cannot be used to make bombs - despite the fact that it wasn't entirely clear from the discussion whether Zakaria was referring to the first step deal agreed to last November (which clearly doesn't require the destruction of any centrifuges) or a final agreement, which has yet to be negotiated,

Even supporters of the first step agreement expressed grave concern about Rouhani's apparent ultimatum. Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg called it a “bad sign” and Zakaria himself warned of a coming diplomatic “train wreck”.

Everyone needs to calm down.

The November 2013 first step agreement between the P5+1 and Iran verifiably caps Iran's nuclear program and rolls back its most proliferation sensitive aspect: the stockpiling and production of uranium enriched to 20%. In return, Iran will receive approximately $7 billion in sanctions relief (assuming of course that it lives up to its obligations under the deal).

However, neither side intends this to be the end state of the diplomatic process. The P5+1 rightly seeks much greater constraints on Iran's program (including but not confined to limits on the number of centrifuges) and Tehran seeks much greater relief from sanctions. Constructing a deal that meets the requirements of both sides is the subject of the next round of talks, which are slated to get underway in February.

Citing a recent report by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a respected authority on the technical aspects of Iran's nuclear program, Goldberg argues that Iran would have to dismantle 15,000 centrifuges as part of any acceptable final deal, since merely mothballing them and leaving them in Iran would allow the regime to quickly start spinning them again.

But this is a gross misreading of what the ISIS report proposes regarding centrifuges. In fact, ISIS more or less recommends the mothballing approach Goldberg says is a non-starter.

The report states that as part of a final deal that keeps Iran 6-12 months away from a breakout capacity, Iran will need to cap the number of centrifuges at roughly 4000 (down from the current 19,000) and that excess centrifuges must be turned off, disabled in a manner so as to require at least one month to restart their operation, and then stored in locations separate from the operating centrifuges under strict IAEA supervision. 

The stored centrifuges would only be unsealed to replace or provide spare parts to repair broken centrifuges from among those still spinning.

Under this scenario, then, Iran may not be forced to technically dismantle any centrifuges, depending on how one defines “dismantle”. There are undeniably other ways to limit Iran's domestic centrifuge capacity without requiring that Iran physically put its centrifuges to the band saw.

At this point it’s not at all clear what Rouhani meant by dismantlement or what end state he and the Supreme Leader would or would not accept. Indeed, it would be surprising if Rouhani publicly revealed exactly what he would be willing to countenance as part of a final deal, given that talks have scarcely gotten off the ground. A long and difficult negotiation, which will encompass far more than the issue of centrifuges, is ahead of us and we shouldn’t rush to judgment based on limited information.

It's also important to remember that there are many critics of diplomacy back in Iran and Rouhani is certainly mindful of this fact. He is seeking to paint his efforts in the toughest light possible to his domestic audience, which is divided about the merits of limiting Iran’s nuclear program.

This also in large part explains Iran's strong reactions to U.S. characterizations of certain aspects of the first step deal as "dismantlement." But what matters at the end of the day is the text of the agreement, which identifies clear steps that each side must take. The same will be the case regarding whatever final deal is reached. The rest is just political theater.

This is not to downplay the potential costs of domestic posturing. The more Rouhani says that Iran will not accept any dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, the harder it could be for him to accept and sell back home the significant roll back that will undoubtedly be demanded.

Likewise, the more Obama administration officials say that Iran must dismantle large parts of its nuclear infrastructure, the more difficult it could be to find creative solutions that verifiably keep Iran from the bomb and to convince Congress to move on the significant sanctions relief that will be required to secure Iranian concessions.

But Rouhani’s dismantlement comment shouldn’t be grounds for excessive hyperventilation. A good final deal can be achieved without physically destroying centrifuges.

President Obama has stated that he believes the odds of reaching a final deal with Iran on its nuclear program are no better than 50-50. There is no doubt that the next round of talks will be enormously challenging and that significant gaps between the two sides will need to be closed. But these talks are the best chance we have to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program can’t be used to develop bombs. We should give our negotiators the space and flexibility they need to explore what might be possible.

Clapper: "Iran Able to Build Missile-Deliverable Nuclear Weapons, if It Chooses to Do So."

Clapper: "Iran Able to Build Missile-Deliverable Nuclear Weapons, if It Chooses to Do So".

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper today delivered the threat assessment of the US intelligence community to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The Statement for the Record on Worldwide Threat Assessment includes significant portions on issues related to Iran. Following are the text on Iranian nuclear program.

“We continue to assess that Iran’s overarching strategic goal of enhancing its security, prestige, and regional influence have led it to pursue capabilities to meet its civilian goals, and give it the ability to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons, if it chooses to do so. 

At the same time, Iran’s perceived need for economic relief has led it to make concessions on its nuclear program through the 24 November 2013 Joint Plan of Action with the P5+1 countries and the European Union (EU). In this context, we judge that Iran is trying to balance conflicting objectives. It wants to improve its nuclear and missile capabilities while avoiding severe repercussions – such as a military strike or regime-threatening sanctions. We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran has made technical progress in a number of areas – including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors, and ballistic missiles – from which it could draw if it decided to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons. These technical advancements strengthen our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons. This makes the central issue its political will to do so.

Of particular note, Iran has made progress during the past year by installing additional centrifuges at the Fuel Enrichment Plant, developing advanced centrifuge design, and stockpiling more low-enriched uranium hexafluoride (LEUF6). These developments have better positioned Iran to to produce weapons-grade uranium (WGU) using its declared facilities and uranium stockpiles, if it chooses to do so.
Despite this progress, we assess that Iran would not be able to divert safeguarded material and produce enough WGU for a weapon before such activity would be discovered. Iran has also continued to work toward starting up the IR-40 Heavy Water Research Reactor near Arak.

We judge that Iran would choose a ballistic missile as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons, if Iran ever builds these weapons. Iran’s ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering WMD, and Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Iran’s progress on space launch vehicles – along with its desire to deter the United States and its allies – provides Tehran with the means and motivation to develop longer-range missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM).

We assess that if Iran fully implements the Joint Plan, it will temporarily halt the expansion of its enrichment program, eliminate its production and stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium in a form suitable for further enrichment, and provide additional transparency into its existing and planned nuclear facilities. This transparency would provide earlier warning of a breakout using these facilities.”Hmmm.....You don't need ICBM's for targeting Israel, you need them for AMERICA!

"Israel's staunchest Ally" Pres Obama threatens to veto Iran sanctions legislation.

"Israel's staunchest Ally" Pres Obama threatens to veto Iran sanctions legislation.HT: IsraelMatzav.

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Hussein Obama threatened to veto any Iran sanctions legislation passed by Congress.

"Let me be clear," Obama said: "If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it."

The speech marked the first time Obama personally threatened to veto sanctions legislation against Iran. Senior White House aides have issued similar veto threats since the end of December, when Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Robert Menendez, a Democrat, introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013.

The bill— which would trigger new sanctions tools against Iran should negotiations fail to reach a comprehensive agreement in twelve months time— has since garnered 59 public cosponsors in the upper chamber across party lines. The bill also has the aggressive backing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

"For the sake of our national security," Obama said Tuesday night, in his State of the Union address, "we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed."

The president noted in his speech that negotiations toward a treaty over Iran's nuclear program, now a decade old, would be difficult and "may not succeed." In prior remarks, Obama has put the odds of success in negotiations with Iran at less than 50 percent.

"If Iran’s leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon," Obama continued. "But if Iran’s leaders do seize the chance, then Iran could take an important step to rejoin the community of nations, and we will have resolved one of the leading security challenges of our time without the risks of war."

So it will take 100-0 vote in the Senate like in 2011? Senator Mark Kirk (R-Il) - one of the two main co-sponsors - is ready.

"The American people – Democrats and Republicans alike – overwhelmingly want Iran held accountable during any negotiations," Kirk said in a statement. Polls show that while most Americans don't prioritize foreign policy matters, they view Iran with deep distrust, and support more sanctions over less.

"While the president promises to veto any new Iran sanctions legislation, the Iranians have already vetoed any dismantlement of their nuclear infrastructure," Kirk added, calling his bill an "insurance policy" for Congress.

A new poll published by the Zionist Organization of America shows that overwhelming majorities of Americans (NOTE - NOT American Jews) back Israel against President Obama on every major issue of the day involving the Jewish state.

The National Omnibus Poll, conducted by McLaughlin Associates and published on January 17, 2014, surveyed a large, nationwide cross-section of 1000 Americans, consisting of Protestants (46%), Catholics (30%), Jews (3.6%), African Americans (13%), Hispanics (12%), Asians (3%) and Whites (70%). Politically, the respondents were 42% Democratic supporters and 41% Republican supporters.

The poll found that:

To the question, “Iran continues to call for Israel’s destruction and calls America the Great Satan. Do you believe that President Obama has done all he can to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons?,” a majority of 51% of Americans believe that President Obama has not done all he can to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to a mere 28% who believe that he has (almost a 2 ––1 ratio).

To the question, “Should the United States pass stronger sanctions against Iran or should they weaken sanctions in order to convince Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons?,” a large majority of 59% of Americans reply that the U.S. should impose stronger sanctions, as opposed to a mere 17% who believe the U.S. should weaken sanctions on Iran (almost a 3.5 –– 1 ratio).