Latest Iran Video: Ayatollah Dastgheib Condemns Khamenei (31 Aug/5 Sept?)

The Latest from Iran (17 September): Tomorrow

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

This video, which was put up on YouTube last week, suddenly caught folks' attention today. Ayatollah Ali Mohammad Dastgheib, condemning post-election repression, also has some choice words like "apostate" for the Supreme Leader. From the date given on YouTube and our updates, it looks like this may have been delivered on 31 August or 5 September:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30tQ94dntBA[/youtube]

Iran: So, What Are the Green Movement's Goals Tomorrow?

Qods Day: A Protest For Palestine or Against Iran’s Government?
Iran’s Chess Match: Setting Up the Pieces for Friday
The Latest from Iran (17 September): Tomorrow

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Last night EA's Chris Emery sent me this challenging question:

"What do you think the Green Movement consider to be their achievable aims on Friday and, more generally, beyond that? What would be their ideal result?

"My view is that the Green Movement is unsure what is achievable now and aim simply to demonstrate that they have not gone away (an achievement in itself --- but not necessarily leverage). Sadly, I think the authorities probably have a clearer idea of their aims and consider most of them, but not all, achievable."

This was my immediate reply:

The immediate aim? Stand up to Ahmadinejad.

I appreciate the wider points about aims but just surviving after everything thrown at the movement would be a victory. It maintains some space for all the complex negotiations going on in Tehran and Qom.

For me, if the President succeeds, this is no longer an Islamic Republic. Karroubi and senior clerics are saying this but they need the public display if they're to have any traction against the forces around Ahmadinejad.

Chris' response:

I agree both on the aim and the achievement of still making noise. It would be a victory but how will it limit the President's power? If Ahmadinejad's aim is to establish a military dictatorship and the Supreme Leader's is to preserve the authority of his office, then I think these demonstrations put much more pressure on the Supreme Leader than on Ahmadinejad. The President seems unconcerned by his lack of legitimacy and confident of the loyalty and capability of the security services. Ayatollah Khamenei has placed his lot with a man who literally is not bothered by the protests.

In regard to the complex negotiations in Tehran and Qom, you have to ask why they need more space and how they will use it. Are they hoping that the demos will somehow make a strategy for limiting Ahmadinejad's power clearer? Are they hoping that Ahmadinejad will have his wings clipped by the Supreme Leader? I think that rather than the people providing space for never-ending complex negotiations, which have now been rumbling on for more 3 months, those in the negotiations need to provide the space for the people by showing some real leadership. Open letters to the Supreme Leader backed by real threats, strikes, etc.

But they won't, and I expect that Ahmadinejad will get up on friday and say I won, I am your President, my mandate is to root out those contaminating the revolution or acting as foreign agents. You will not win. In other words, your demonstrations do not scare me.

I think that in the long term, the genie will never go back in the bottle and that is the Green movement's fantastuc legacy. However, in the short term, they need some direction if they are to persuade the Supreme Leader that the situation demands some immediate concessions.

Over the next 24 hours, we'll be debating this question, with other EA staff putting in their views and, of course, welcoming the thoughts of our readers.

Tomorrow is Qods Day.

Text: The US Draft Resolution on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

The US, Iran, and Missile Defense: The Inside Story

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

From Politico:

September 11, 2009

United States Draft

UNSC Resolution on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Nuclear Disarmament

The Security Council,

PP1. Resolving to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the goals of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), in a way that promotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all,

PP2. Reaffirming the Statement of its President adopted at the Council’s meeting at the level of Heads of State and Government on 31 January 1992 (S/23500), including the need for all Member States to fulfill their obligations in relation to arms control and disarmament and to prevent proliferation in all its aspects of all weapons of mass destruction,

PP3. Recalling also that the above Statement (S/23500) underlined the need for all Member States to resolve peacefully in accordance with the Charter any problems in that context threatening or disrupting the maintenance of regional and global stability,

PP4. Bearing in mind the responsibilities of other organs of the United Nations in the field of disarmament, arms control and nonproliferation, and supporting them to continue to play their due roles,

PP5. Underlining that the NPT remains the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and calling upon all States Parties to the NPT to cooperate so that the 2010 NPT Review Conference can successfully strengthen the Treaty and set realistic and achievable goals in all the Treaty’s three pillars: non-proliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and disarmament,

PP6. Reaffirming its firm commitment to the NPT and its conviction that the international nuclear non-proliferation regime should be maintained and strengthened to ensure its effective implementation,

PP7. Calling for further progress on all aspects of disarmament to enhance global security,

PP8. Welcoming the decisions of those non-nuclear-weapon States that have dismantled their nuclear weapons programs or renounced the possession of nuclear weapons,

PP9. Welcoming the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament efforts undertaken and accomplished by nuclear-weapon States, and underlining the need to pursue further efforts in the sphere of nuclear disarmament, in accordance with Article VI of the NPT,

PP10. Welcoming in this connection the decision of the Russian Federation and the United States of America to conduct negotiations to conclude a new comprehensive legally binding agreement to replace the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, which expires in December 2009,

PP11. Welcoming and supporting the steps taken to conclude nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties and reaffirming the conviction that the establishment of internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned, and in accordance with the 1999 UN Disarmament Commission guidelines, enhances global and regional peace and security, strengthens the nuclear nonproliferation regime, and contributes toward realizing the objectives of nuclear disarmament,

PP12. Recalling the statements by each of the five nuclear-weapon States, noted by resolution 984 (1995), in which they give security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon State Parties to the NPT, and reaffirming that such security assurances strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime,

PP13. Reaffirming its resolutions 825 (1993), 1695 (2006), 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009),

PP14. Reaffirming its resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008),

PP15. Reaffirming all other relevant non-proliferation resolutions adopted by the Security Council,

PP16. Gravely concerned about the threat of nuclear terrorism, including the provision of nuclear material or technical assistance for the purposes of terrorism,

PP17. Mindful in this context of the risk that irresponsible or unlawful provision of nuclear material or technical assistance could enable terrorism,

PP18. Expressing its support for the 2010 Global Summit on Nuclear Security,

PP19. Affirming its support for the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism,

PP20. Recognizing the progress made by the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and the G-8 Global Partnership,

PP21. Reaffirming UNSC Resolution 1540 (2004) and the necessity for all States to implement fully the measures contained therein, and calling upon all UN Member States and international and regional organizations to cooperate actively with the Committee established pursuant to that resolution, including in the course of the comprehensive review as called for in resolution 1810 (2008),

1. Emphasizes that a situation of noncompliance with nonproliferation obligations shall be brought to the attention of the Security Council, which will determine if that situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and emphasizes the Security Council’s primary responsibility in addressing such threats;

2. Calls upon States Parties to the NPT to comply fully with all their obligations under the Treaty, and in this regard notes that enjoyment of the benefits of the NPT by a State Party can be assured only by its compliance with the obligations thereunder;

3. Calls upon all States that are not Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to join the Treaty so as to achieve its universality at an early date, and in any case to adhere to its terms;

4 Calls upon the Parties to the NPT, pursuant to Article VI of the Treaty, to undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear arms reduction and disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and calls on all other States to join in this endeavor;

5. Calls upon all States to refrain from conducting a nuclear test explosion and to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), thereby bringing the treaty into force;

6. Calls upon the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices as soon as possible, and welcomesthe Conference on Disarmament’s adoption by consensus of its Program of Work in 2009;7. Deplores in particular the current major challenges to the nonproliferation regime that the Security Council has determined to be threats to international peace and security, and demands that the parties concerned comply fully with their obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions,

8. Encourages efforts to advance development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy in a framework that reduces proliferation risk and adheres to the highest international standards for safeguards, security, and safety;

9. Underlines that the NPT recognizes in Article IV the right of the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I , II and III of the Treaty,

10. Calls upon States to adopt stricter national controls for the export of sensitive goods and technologies of the nuclear fuel cycle;

11. Encourages the work of the IAEA on multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle, including assurances of nuclear fuel supply and related measures, as effective means of addressing the expanding need for nuclear fuel and nuclear fuel services and minimizing the risk of proliferation, and urges the IAEA Board of Governors to agree upon measures to this end as soon as possible;

12. Affirms that effective IAEA safeguards are essential to prevent nuclear proliferation and to facilitate cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and in that regard:

a. Calls upon all non-nuclear-weapon States party to the NPT that have yet to bring into force a comprehensive safeguards agreement or a modified small quantities protocol to do so immediately,

b. Calls upon all States to adopt and implement an Additional Protocol, which together with comprehensive safeguards agreements constitute essential elements of the IAEA safeguards system,

c. Stresses the importance for all Member States to ensure that the IAEA continue to have all the necessary resources and authority to verify the declared use of nuclear materials and facilities and the absence of undeclared activities, and for the IAEA to report to the Council accordingly as appropriate;

13. Encourages States to provide the IAEA with the cooperation necessary for it to verify whether a state is in compliance with its safeguards obligations, and affirms the Security Council’s resolve to support the IAEA’s efforts to that end, consistent with its authorities under the Charter;

14. Undertakes to address without delay any State’s notice of withdrawal from the NPT, including the events described in the statement provided by the State pursuant to Article X of the Treaty, while recognizing ongoing discussions in the course of the NPT review on identifying modalities under which NPT States Parties could collectively respond to notification of withdrawal, and affirmsthat a State remains responsible under international law for violations of the NPT committed prior to its withdrawal;

15. Encourages States to require as a condition of nuclear exports that the recipient State agree that, in the event that it should terminate, withdraw from, or be found by the IAEA Board of Governors to be in noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement or withdraw from the NPT, the supplier state would have a right to require the return of nuclear material and equipment provided prior to such termination, noncompliance or withdrawal, as well as any special nuclear material produced through the use of such material or equipment;

16. Encourages States to consider whether a recipient State has in place an Additional Protocol in making nuclear export decisions;

17. Urges States to require as a condition of nuclear exports that the recipient State agree that, in the event that it should terminate its IAEA safeguards agreement, safeguards shall continue with respect to any nuclear material and equipment provided prior to such withdrawal, as well as any special nuclear material produced through the use of such material or equipment;

18. Calls for universal adherence to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and its 2005 Amendment;

19. Welcomes the March 2009 recommendations of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) to make more effective use of existing funding mechanisms, including the consideration of the establishment of a voluntary fund, and affirms its commitment to promote full implementation of UNSCR 1540 by Member States by ensuring effective and sustainable support for the activities of the 1540 Committee;

20. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004) by Member States and, with an aim of preventing access to, or assistance and financing for, weapons of mass destruction, related materials and their means of delivery by non-State actors, as defined in the resolution, and calls upon Member States to cooperate actively with the Committee established pursuant to that resolution and the IAEA, including rendering assistance, at their request, for their implementation of UNSCR 1540 provisions, and in this context welcomes the forthcoming comprehensive review of the status of implementation of UNSCR 1540 with a view to increasing its effectiveness, and calls upon all States to participate actively in this review;

21. Calls upon Member States to share best practices with a view to improved safety standards and nuclear security practices and raise standards of nuclear security to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, with the aim of securing all vulnerable nuclear material from such risks within four years;

22. Calls upon all States to manage responsibly and minimize to the greatest extent that is technically and economically feasible the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes, including by working to convert research reactors and radioisotope production processes to the use of low enriched uranium fuels and targets;

23. Calls upon all States to improve their national technical capabilities to detect, deter, and disrupt illicit trafficking in nuclear materials throughout their territories, and to work to enhance international partnerships and capacity building in this regard;

24. Urges all States to take all appropriate national measures in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, to prevent proliferation financing, shipments, or illicit trafficking, to strengthen export controls, to secure sensitive materials, and to control access to intangible transfers of technology;

25. Declares its resolve to monitor closely any situations involving the proliferation of nuclear weapons, their means of delivery or related material, including to or by non-State actors as they are defined in resolution 1540 (2004), and, as appropriate, to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security;

26. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The US, Iran, and Missile Defense: The Inside Story

Text: The US Draft Resolution on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

The media will be buzzing for the rest of the day about an American "scrapping" of its plans to base missile defense in sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Amidst the drama, it may not put together the story, which is as much about US-Iran relations and an Obama "grand initiative", to be unveiled at the United Nations next week.

Here's the inside story, which broke two days ago on Politico, but went largely unnoticed by the media. Last Friday, the United States delegation at the United Nations circulated a draft Security Council resolution on "Nuclear Nonproliferation and Nuclear Disarmament". This called on all states to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT -- note: this includes Israel) and to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was resisted by the George W. Bush Administration. Any "situation of noncompliance with nonproliferation obligations [would] be brought to the attention of the Security Council, which will determine if that situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security". (The text of the resolution is in a separate entry.)

It's a stunning if risky move. The Obama Administration is hoping to move the agenda away from specific cases such as Iran towards a wider framework encompassing all existing or aspiring nuclear powers. In the short term, that means dropping the deadline of either September or December for Tehran to give way on all demands regarding its nuclear programme. The US had gotten itself into a very difficult position with that artificial date, as it faced pursuing further economic sanctions and thus jeopardising its talks with Iran on co-operation over issues such as Afghanistan.

Similarly, the pursuit of missile defense was looking more and more ludicrous. The obvious target was Moscow, but saying this or even letting it be assumed risked US relations with Russia across a number of issues. So the pretense was set up that the sites in Eastern Europe are the frontline against Iran, which was technically if not politically farcical. The Obama Administration thus risked committing itself to pouring away millions/billions of dollars on a system which made little sense.

Obama's grand initiative has other political advantages. It seizes the limelight from President Ahmadinejad's own trip to New York, and it reassures Western European allies who would prefer discussions on very real security issues rather than made-up ones. But will it work in the longer-term? Given the fraught nature of what passes for political debate in the US these days, expect a barrage of counter-publicity that this is a weak President caving into America's enemies.

UPDATED The Goldstone Report: Both Israel and Hamas Committed War Crimes

Text of The Goldstone Report

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

UPDATE 17 September 1045 GMT: Judge Richard Goldstone has written an opinion piece in The New York Times this morning: "Pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law. Western governments in particular face a challenge because they have pushed for accountability in places like Darfur, but now must do the same with Israel, an ally and a democratic state. Failing to pursue justice for serious violations during the fighting will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice, and reveal an unacceptable hypocrisy."

UPDATE 17 September 1000 GMT: On Wednesday, the leaders of Israel attacked the Goldstone report. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the findings were "a kangaroo court against Israel, whose consequences harm the struggle of democratic countries against terror". Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the outcome was "a prize for terrorism". Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman claimed, "The Goldstone report is seeking to bring the UN back to the dark days in which it decided, under the guidance of states with interests, that Zionism is racism, " and his deputy Danny Ayalon asserted, "The Goldstone report is a dangerous attempt to harm the principle of self-defense by democratic states and provides legitimacy to terrorism." Ayalon also stated that Israel would work to enlist the support of Western democracies in a campaign "to prevent turning international law into a circus."

Israeli President Shimon Peres went even further with the claim:

The Goldstone Commission report is a mockery of history.. It fails to distinguish between the aggressor and a state exercising its right for self defense... The report in practice grants legitimacy to terrorism, premeditated shooting and killing while ignoring the duty and the right of a state to defend itself, something which is explicitly stated in the UN charter.

The United Nations Commission under former South African Judge Richard Goldstone, formed in April to investigate last year's conflict in Gaza,  concluded on Tuesday that both Palestinians and Israelis committed war crimes. The report follows 188 interviews and a review of 10,000 documents and 12,000 photoraphs and videos. 

The report says: "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity." It says that Israel killed civillians, destroyed non-military facilities and imposed a blockade on Gaza as "collective punishment". The report, finds these war crimes were a result of direct consciousz decisions of Israeli officials:

Taking into account the ability to plan, the means to execute plans with the most developed technology available and statements by the Israeli military that almost no errors occurred, the Mission finds that the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions.

On the other side, the reports states that rocket and mortar attacks into southern Israel were "war crimes":

Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population.

The Jerusalem Post stated that the report was "nauseating,"as it created an unjust "equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization" and lacked the context of a decade of terrorist attacks by Hamas. Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy reinforced the public view:

Israel is nauseated and furious about a report that did not surprise us in its imbalance, but did surprise us in the lack of any real pretense to balance.. The report is one of the most disgraceful documents in the long collection of shameful documents put out by the United Nations....The immediate message of this report is: Terror pays. It says that terrorists who attack Jews, unlike terrorists who attack Americans, Spaniards, or other Arabs, will earn the protection of the UN.

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev, said: "The mandate of the Goldstone Commission was one-sided from the beginning and the initiative to establish the commission came from the UN Human Rights Council, which is known for regularly and routinely condemning Israel."

Hamas's reaction was just as negative, as its officials claimed that the report was unbalanced and completely misrepresented reality.