Iran remains defiant in nuclear ambitions
Tehran threatens to dramatically raise oil prices if sanctions are applied.
Iran continued through the weekend to defy international pressure over its nuclear energy program.
The Guardian reports that Sunday, Iranian leaders warned that if it is
subjected to economic sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, it will dramatically raise the price of oil. Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil producer.
"Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran's political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects," [Iran's economy minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari] told Iranian state radio.
Meanwhile,
CNN reports that, in a move gauranteed to
inflame international feelings, the Iranian Foreign Ministry announced it would hold a conference to examine the Holocaust's "scientific aspects and its repercussions." The ministry did not give a date for the proposed conference. Recently, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech, "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred, and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
The Times of London reports that
senior diplomats are gathering in London to discuss what next steps should be taken to deal with Iran's position. Officials from Russia, the US, and China will meet with representatives of the so-called "E3" – Britain, France, and Germany – to decide if Iran should be referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions. The Times also reports that US politicans are starting to talk tough about Iran.
"There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option, that is, a nuclear-armed Iran," said [Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona]. "Now, the military option is the last option but cannot be taken off of the table." Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, called Iran under the leadership of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "force for instability and death".
Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York[,] said President George Bush should not be afraid of strong-arming Russia and China to take a firm stance against Iran: "They need stuff from us," he said. "They need trade. They need all kinds of assistance. We ought to play hardball with them."
Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour, however, told the German magazine
Der Spiegel that with the
price of oil at $60 a barrel and with the US still entrenched in Iraq, "the threat of confrontation didn't mean as much as it would have meant a few years ago, when oil was $30 a barrel and the Iraq war hadn't yet started." Mr. Sadjapour also said that for all the tough talk by American politicians, military options are also limited.
A situation like you see in Iraq – a full-blown military confrontation – is out of the question. Iran realizes that, the US realizes that. The second possible issue is what's called 'surgical strikes,' and I think given the precedent of Osirak, Iraq's nuclear reactor which the Israelis bombed in 1981, the Iranians have dispersed their sites throughout the country. Some of them are underground, so it's not quite clear that if there were surgical strikes, that they would be constructive. You don't know if you've got the right sites; there might be clandestine sites you don't know about. So I think, from the standpoint of the West, neither of those options is very good. There also seems to be some difference of opinion over how quickly Western nations will refer Iran to the Security Council. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Monday that
there should be "no rush" to international sanctions on Iraq. The
Associated Press reports, however, that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants a vote as "
quickly as possible" to refer Iran.
Columnist Victor Davis Hanson writes that he sees the
US doing everything possible to avoid precipitous steps against Iran. He outlines what he says are the four general options that the US and the West faces with Iran, and the possible consequences of each choice. Ultimately, however, Americans must realize that "dealing with a nuclear Iran is not a matter of a good versus a bad choice, but between a very bad one now and something far, far worse to come."
But David Hirst, reporter for
The Guardian in the Middle East from 1963 to 2001, writes that the US-led invasion of Iraq has
turned Iran into a regional power. And that if the US plan for Iraq does not succeed, and if Iraq falls into open civil war, it will only enhance Iran's status even more in the region. Mr. Hirst also says that if Iran is attacked by Israel or the US, then the response is very likely to be as severe as the Iranians have been promising for some time now.
Also...
•
Bomb kills Canadian diplomat (Toronto Star)
•
A protest, a spy program and a campus in an uproar (New York Times)
•
NSA used city police to track peace activists (Baltimore Sun)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
|
RSS feed