@@ Dr. Prather: next Iranian regime will want nukes too @@
Arash
February 5, 2005
The Impossible Dream in the State of the Union Address
Dr. James Gordon Prather
Nuclear weapons physicist
Perhaps you’ve been wondering how this passage about Iran crept into
President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union Address (SOTU):
"Today, Iran remains the world’s primary sponsor of terror, pursuing
nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and
deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian
regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium
reprocessing, and end its support for terrorism. And to the Iranian people,
I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
Well, maybe one of Bush’s speechwriters anticipated that "The Iran Freedom
and Support Act of 2004" (S 2681) was soon to become law.
http://thomas.loc.gov
After "finding" that
The United States intelligence community believes the Government of Iran
is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
and that
The United States Government believes that the Government of Iran supports
terrorists and extremist religious leaders in Iraq with the clear intention
of subverting coalition efforts to bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
the bill "declares" that
It is the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support regime change for the Islamic Republic of Iran and to
promote the transition to a democratic government to replace that regime.
and to that end
The President is authorized to provide assistance to foreign and domestic
pro-democracy groups opposed to the non-democratic Government of Iran,
including the award of grants to qualified pro-democracy radio and
television broadcasting organizations.
Doesn’t that constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign
state, a violation of international law? So what? It worked in Ukraine.
A succession of U.S. Presidents and Congresses have attempted to effect
"regime change" in Iran.
But during Clinton’s first term – with no sign that the Mullahs were about
to shuffle off stage – Iran signed contracts (a) with both Russia and China
to construct nuclear power plants, (b) with Russia to supply a turn-key
gas-centrifuge uranium enrichment plant and (c) with China to supply a
turn-key uranium conversion facility.
Even though all these facilities were to be subject to Iran’s Safeguards
Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Clinton had a cow.
In 1995, by Executive Order, President Clinton banned U.S. investment in
Iran’s energy sector, and banned U.S. trade with and investment in Iran.
In 1996 Congress passed The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act which provides for
penalties to be imposed on any foreign company that invested more than $20
million in one year in Iran’s energy sector.
Under ILSA, such a company can be subject to – among other sanctions --
denial of Export-Import Bank loans, a ban on U.S. government procurement,
and restrictions on its imports into the United States.
The ILSA threat indirectly resulted in China being forced to cancel its
contracts and Russia canceling the uranium-enrichment plant contract.
Under current law, U.S. firms are not allowed to do business with Iran, but
the law does not specifically bar their foreign subsidiaries from such
business.
Nevertheless, General Electric has just announced it will stop accepting any
new orders for business in Iran. Through a foreign subsidiary, GE has been
providing hydroelectric equipment, medical equipment, and oil and gas
equipment to Iran.
Halliburton and other U.S.-based firms are following suit.
Hossein Mousavian, Secretary of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Supreme
National Security Council in Iran said he was not surprised by these
strong-arm attempts by the US to get Iran to completely give up its
uranium-enrichment program.
According to the Paris agreement [with the Europeans], Iran has the right
to thoroughly enjoy peaceful nuclear technology within the NPT and without
any discrimination.
Europeans might need to take along the Americans in their efforts to reach
an agreement with Iran to have comprehensive industrial, political, security
and nuclear technology co-operation. This is possible. But the US is not
involved in the talks.
It is the Europeans’ responsibility to get support from other countries
like the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, Canada or other countries. We have only
one talking partner in the talks and that is the Europeans.
Virtually all non-U.S. observers agree on one thing. In the unlikely event
that the U.S. can effect regime change in Iran, the new regime is likely to
be just as insistent as the current regime upon its "right to thoroughly
enjoy peaceful nuclear technology, within the NPT, and without any
discrimination," irrespective of whether America stands with them or not.
* Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing
official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal
Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the
Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for
national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy
Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a
nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather