The Gaggle : iran

More Details on What the U.S. Knows About Iran's Secret Nuclear Site

Mark Hosenball — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:50:04 GMT

A U.S. counterproliferation official tells NEWSWEEK that intelligence agencies have been tracking the construction of this secret Iranian facility, built inside a mountain, for a matter of years. It is not finished, and the earliest they think it could become operational is a year from now or longer. One of the main reasons that President Obama, along with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, felt it was appropriate to talk about it now is that Iran for the first time acknowledged the facility to the International Atomic Energy Agency earlier this week.

Another reason they may have decided to confirm the site's existence now is to get the story out before the Iranians circulate their own spin—which could be that this place is a pilot research facility. To U.S. and other Western officials, what's striking about the facility is its size: it's estimated to have the capacity to hold 3,000 centrifuges. The reason the U.S. and other countries think the facility is probably intended for producing highly enriched uranium for weapons is that it is too small to enrich the large quantities of uranium needed for a civilian power program, a U.S. counterproliferation official tells NEWSWEEK.

The official adds that the disclosure of the secret enrichment facility does not for the moment alter other judgments by U.S. intelligence agencies, including the conclusion, reported by NEWSWEEK earlier this month, that Iran has not restarted a program to specifically develop a nuclear bomb. U.S. agencies believe Iran was working specifically to develop a bomb until 2003, but then stopped its work on that program and has not resumed it. However, U.S. officials have always maintained that mastering the enrichment of uranium is the most difficult process in building a nuclear bomb, and many officials also believe that Iran may have acquired enough additional technology to put in place a kind of standby bomb-development program that could be rapidly restarted if a decision were taken to do so.

UPDATE:

The secret enrichment facility is understood to be located on a military base near the holy city of Qum, according to a U.S. counterproliferation official. Iran is already making excuses for why it did not disclose the facility's existence earlier, to the public or to international nuclear regulators at the IAEA. In Tehran's view, international regulations do not require it to disclose the existence of such a facility until six months before nuclear material is going to be used in it. This interpretation of international standards is not shared by the U.S. and its allies.

A European diplomatic source says the disclosure of the secret Iranian project is certain to add urgency to international discussions regarding possible new sanctions against Iran. The first move to step up such sanctions would probably involve Western efforts to place new restrictions on financial transactions and trade with Iran, including drastic curbs on the sale to that country of equipment used to refine crude oil into gasoline. (Less likely, at least in the near future, would be Western sanctions curbing the sale of refined gasoline to Iran, a concept that some U.S. anti-Iran activists are promoting.)

Obama and Allies Accuse Iran of Building Secret Nuclear Site

Holly Bailey — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:18:23 GMT

President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France accused Iran on Friday of building a secret underground nuclear facility that had been hidden from the world for years. The U.S. had reportedly been tracking the plant, but Obama and his counterparts decided to go public today after Iran apparently learned that Western intelligence agencies were onto the project. On Monday, Iran made passing mention of the secret facility in a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency—describing it as a “pilot plant.” But Obama was skeptical of those claims, calling the facility a “direct challenge” to international agreements governing non-proliferation.

Speaking today from Pittsburgh where the G20 economic summit is underway, Obama, along with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, called for Iran to immediately open the site to international inspectors. “The site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to [its] international responsibilities, including, specifically, revealing all nuclear-related activities,” Obama said. “Iran is breaking the rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.”

Obama said the U.S. remains committed to “serious meaningful engagement with Iran,” but that the secret facility now adds a “sense of urgency” to the upcoming meetings scheduled next between members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, and Iran. “At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively with the IAEA to take concrete steps to create confidence and transparency in its nuclear program, and to demonstrate that it is committed to establishing its peaceful intentions through meaningful dialogue and concrete actions,” Obama said. “We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands. But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law."

Here's Obama's full remarks from Pittsburgh this morning, courtesy of CQ Transcripts:

Good morning. We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qum for several years.

Earlier this week, the Iranian government presented a letter to the IAEA that made reference to a new enrichment facility years after they had started its construction. The existence of this facility underscores Iran's continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions and IAEA requirements. We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information and to report to the IAEA Board of Governors.

Now, Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime. These rules are clear: all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; those nations with nuclear weapons must move toward disarmament; those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them. That compact has largely held for decades, keeping the world far safer and more secure. And that compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.This site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including, specifically, revealing all nuclear-related activities. As the international community knows, this is not the first time that Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program.

Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the energy needs of its people. But the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world. It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations.

We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran to address the nuclear issue through the P5+1 negotiations. Through this dialogue, we are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise, that obligations must be kept and that treaties will be enforced. And that's why there's a sense of urgency about the upcoming meeting on Oct. 1 between Iran, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany. At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively with the IAEA to take concrete steps to create confidence and transparency in its nuclear program, and to demonstrate that it is committed to establishing its peaceful intentions through meaningful dialogue and concrete actions.

To put it simply, Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations. We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands. But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law. I should point out that, although the United Kingdom, France, and the United States made the presentation to Vienna, that Germany, a member of the P5+1, and Chancellor Merkel in particular, who could not be here this morning, wished to associate herself with these remarks.

Gibbs Backtracks on Whether Ahmadinejad Is 'Elected Leader' of Iran

Holly Bailey — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:53:16 GMT

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs caused quite a stir yesterday when he referred to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the “elected leader” of Iran—this in spite of all the violent protests over June’s disputed election results in that country. Opponents say Ahmadinejad stole the election, but nonetheless, he was sworn in today for a second term as president of Iran. While countries like Russia were quick to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his re-election, the U.S. and other allies have been careful not to get mired in the electoral dispute. For instance, France this week emphasized that they recognize states, not particular governments. This afternoon, Gibbs retracted his “elected leader” comment and said it was not for him or the U.S. to judge whether Ahmadinejad was legitimate but up to the Iranian people. “He’s been inaugurated, that’s a fact,” Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One. “it's not for me or for us to denote his legitimacy, except to acknowledge the fact.” Here’s Gibbs’s full remarks:

Q: Switching topics slightly and then we might go back to North Korea. Do you have any reaction to the swearing-in of President Ahmadinejad in Iran today?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me correct a little bit of what I said yesterday. I denoted that Mr. Ahmadinejad was the elected leader of Iran. I would say it's not for me to pass judgment on. He's been inaugurated, that's a fact. Whether any election was fair, obviously the Iranian people still have questions about that and we'll let them decide that. But I would simply say he's been inaugurated, and we know that is simply a fact.

Q: Do you recognize him as the leader, elected fairly or not?

MR. GIBBS: It's not for—it's not for me or for us to denote his legitimacy, except to acknowledge the fact.

Q: Does the White House believe the election was fair?

MR. GIBBS: That's not for us to pass judgment on. I think that's for the Iranian people to decide, and obviously there are many that still have a lot of questions.

Obama Says G-8 Concerned About 'Appalling' Events in Iran

Holly Bailey — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:17:05 GMT

Going before reporters here in Italy, President Obama called his first G-8 summit “highly productive,” even as he conceded that summit leaders didn’t agree on every issue and not every problem was solved. Obama cited “meaningful” progress on issues like climate change and nuclear proliferation and disputed reports that the summit had failed to meet expectations by not issuing sanctions on Iran for the “appalling events” in the wake of last month’s disputed election there.

“This notion that we were trying to get sanctions or that this was a forum in which we could get sanctions is not accurate. What we wanted is exactly what we got—a statement of unity and strong condemnation,” Obama said, noting that the statement was even more important because Russia, a key trading partner of Iran, had signed onto the declaration. “My hope is, is that the Iranian leadership will look at the statement coming out of the G8 and recognize that world opinion is clear.”

The president said the leaders will re-evaluate Iran’s behavior at the upcoming G-20 summit in Pittsburgh in late September. Speaking of that, Obama acknowledged criticism of the summit process and said he had his own beefs with how things work. “There is no doubt we have to update and refresh and renew,” the president said, noting that many of these institutions are simply outdated. He noted that he had attended “a lot of these” during his six months in office and said he supported “streamlining them and making them more effective.” “We need to make sure that they’re as productive as possible,” Obama said.

Obama on Putin, Pies and GITMO

Holly Bailey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:45:32 GMT

Here's more from President Obama's interview this morning with the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven:

On Russia, Obama was asked why he plans to meet with former Russian President Vladimir Putin in addition to talks with current leader Dmitry Medvedev. “(Putin) still has a lot of sway…and I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated — that's it's time to move forward in a different direction,” Obama told the AP. “"I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the U.S. is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process.”

Also on foreign policy, Obama said he was “not reconciled” with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. The president also expressed some reservations about his recently announced policy of putting some high risk Guantanamo Bay detainees in “indefinite detention” as the administration moves to close the prison next year. “It gives me huge pause,” Obama said, suggesting he may not follow through on the policy.

In perhaps his most interesting comments, Obama weighed in on the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action this week, in which it decided in favor of a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who sued the city for reverse discrimination. The ruling overturned a verdict laid down by an Appeals Court judge named Sonia Sotomayor. (Maybe you’ve heard of her.) SCOTUS, Obama said, was “moving the ball” on affirmative action, but he noted that the court had ruled out the use of racial preferences in hiring. Still, he spoke sympathetically toward the white firefighters, telling Loven, “I’ve always believed that affirmative action was less of an issue or should be less of an issue that it has made out to be in news reports.”

In addition to the Michael Jackson comments, Obama also weighed in on life at the White House. His biggest pet peeve: having to wear make-up all the time. "The shine police," he groused. On the plus side, he raved about the White House pastry chef, who “makes the best pie I’ve ever tasted."

As Obama Heads to Russia, the 'Reset' Faces Its First Test

Holly Bailey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:53:45 GMT

When President Obama met Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for the first time last April, both men called for a new day in relations between the two countries. Obama said he wanted to push the “reset” button, while Medvedev called for an end to the “drift” in the U.S./Russian dynamic. They pledged to forge a more pragmatic relationship than their predecessors, George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, who bonded personally even as ties between Russia and the U.S. sank to new lows. Obama did not want to be “buddy buddy” with Medvedev, a senior administration official told reporters at the time. The White House, according to the official, wanted to forge something “more substantial,” a rapport of “candor and frankness” that would produce real results.

As Obama prepares for his first visit to Russia next week, the boundaries of that new relationship will face its first real test. Obama and Medvedev are expected to announce some progress toward the renegotiation of a crucial arms-control treaty that aims to cut down on nuclear weapons stockpiles. But despite all the conciliatory talk these past few months, the two sides continue to face significant differences over several issues, including how to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and a proposed U.S. missile shield in Europe. In recent weeks, the Russians have suggested that Obama will not reach his goal of reducing nuclear arms unless he drops the U.S.’s missile defense plans. But on Wednesday, the White House signaled in some surprisingly tough talk that it would offer no such concessions on that issue or another hot topic for the Russians: a U.S.-backed push to add former Soviet states Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, a move Moscow strongly opposes.

Asked in a briefing what “reassurances” Obama might give Medvedev on those two issues, Michael McFaul, the president’s top adviser on Russia, unloaded. “We’re definitely not going to use the word reassure in the way we talk about these things,” McFaul told reporters. “We’re not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense… We don’t need the Russians.” They would be no concessions on those issues “in the name of reset.” McFaul insisted.

There is one area where the U.S. strongly needs the Russians: Iran. While the White House says it won’t drop its missile defense plan, Obama has hinted that the shield wouldn’t be needed if Iran’s push to develop nuclear weapons can be stopped—a clear incentive for Moscow to intervene, though Obama insisted he was offering no “quid pro quo.” But Russia remains hesitant to crack down on Iran, a key trading partner. Last month, Russia was one of the first countries to recognize the controversial reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even as others remained skeptical. But the U.S. sees some signs of hope there: last week, Russia signed on to a letter sent by the G8 foreign ministers ahead of next week’s summit in Italy condemning the post-election violence in Iran. According to an aide, Obama was “gratified” at the role Russia played in finalizing the statement.

How does the White House hope to sway Russia? For one, administration officials say they hope to find some areas of agreement on efforts to prevent terrorism as well as energy and climate change. But Obama, just as he did in recent trips to Europe and the Middle East, will seek to capitalize on his international popularity by appealing directly to the Russian people. While there are lengthy sit-downs with Medvedev and Putin on his schedule, Obama also plans to meet with business and civic leaders in Moscow as a way to establish what an administration official described as a “direct relationship” with the Russian people, who tend to view Americans as adversaries.

In Moscow, Obama will deliver a major speech echoing his remarks in Cairo last month in which the president will talk about American values and its desire to have a better relationship with Russia. According to the White House, Obama’s goal is to change the longtime perception among a majority of the Russian people that what’s good for the U.S. is bad for Russia. “They think that our No. 1 objective in the world is to make Russia weaker, to surround Russia, to do things that make us stronger and Russia weaker,” McFaul says. “I think what you're going to hear when President Obama is in Moscow is that that is not the way that he sees the relationship … It's not, in our view, a zero-sum game, that if it's two points for Russia it's negative two for us, but there are ways that we can cooperate to advance our interests and, at the same time, do things with the Russians that are good for them, as well.”

But as the White House has learned in recent months, turning the page with the Russians won't be easy. It will take more than nice talk to produce the meaningful results that Obama wants and needs. He'll have to overcome decades of mistrust between the U.S. and the Russians--entrenched history that a so-called reset button won't easily clear away.

Gibbs: We're On the Same Page, I Swear!

Holly Bailey — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:37:01 GMT

Remember that internal discord over how President Obama is handling Iran? Forget it! Everything is swell! On the record, at least. Here's White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at the briefing this afternoon:

QUESTION: Robert, on Iran, is there an internal debate in the White House now between those who clearly support what the president is doing in terms of the hands-off approach and those who think that the president needs to have some stronger language? Is that ongoing in the White House?

GIBBS: There's no debate in the White House.

QUESTION: Is there division at all? Is everyone on the same page on this or are there those who think that the president -- internally -- that the president...

GIBBS: Everybody's on the same page. There's no difference of opinion.

And later:

QUESTION: You said there's no difference of opinion. But we've been led to believe this president seeks out different opinions from his advisers. You've got these incredibly knowledgeable people sitting around the room. He can't find a single person who does anything other than nod "yes," Mr. President, "you're absolutely right on this"? How can there not be some difference of opinion on this?

GIBBS: Well, there is a belief by all here that -- that this is a debate, as I've said, I think, everyday for the last five days -- four days, plus my statement, that the American people and this government are not going to pick the next leader of Iran. That's something that the Iranians have to do. We have to ensure that we express our views. As I've said about ensuring that people can demonstrate; have their causes and concerns heard, and that's what people here believe.

QUESTION: Is there nobody who believes you ought be a little more open in supporting the demonstrators? Nobody's expressed that opinion to him?

GIBBS: Everybody's on the same page.

QUESTION: Just absolutely verbatim? Nobody...

GIBBS: We walk around like robots.

Internal Discord Over Obama's Iran Response?

Holly Bailey — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:25:15 GMT

It’s not just Republicans who are unhappy with President Obama’s muted response to what’s happening in Iran. There’s apparently an internal divide at the White House over how tough or not Obama should be. According to the New York Times this morning, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden “would like to strike a stronger tone in support of protestors” while “other White House officials have counseled a more cautious approach.” Obama has clearly sided with the latter, saying he doesn’t want to be seen as “meddling” in the Iranian elections. What’s interesting to your Gaggler is this is only second or third time we’ve heard about internal discontent coming from this very buttoned down, very on message, very “all is great” White House. So who leaked this out?

Twittering the Revolution?

Katie Connolly — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:07:03 GMT

The revolution won't be televised - it will be twittered, apparently. NBC's Libby Leist is reporting that the State Department has asked Twitter not to shut down for regular maintenance because tweets have proved useful in monitoring the situation in Iran. From Leist:

The official said that Web sites and cell phones had been shut down and journalists were being kicked out, so the U.S. wanted "to highlight to [Twitter] that this was an important means of communication -- not with us -- but horizontally in Iran." It was a lower-level official who called Twitter -- not the Secretary of State, the official stressed. "I don't want to convey the impression that the State Department picked up the hotline, told them not to do it and it’s because of our intervention that it didn't happen," he added.

I've previously noted my disdain for Twitter and refusal to Tweet, but the idea that it is helping information circulate during this turbulent time in Iran is actually making me rethink my stance. Despite many conversations with fervent Twitter converts (I'm looking at you, psuedo-arch-enemy Michael Scherer), this the first time I've seen a genuinely useful and politically meaningful role for the service. Bravo, I say.

Obama Has "Deep Concerns" About Iran's Election

Holly Bailey — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:25:54 GMT

Speaking to reporters at the White House this morning, President Obama went a teeeeensy bit further on Iran than he did in his remarks yesterday, saying that he had “deep concerns” about the election. (On Monday, he said he was “deeply troubled” by the violence.) Here’s what Obama said, courtesy the White House:

It was only -- let's see -- I think seven hours ago or eight hours ago when I -- I have said before that I have deep concerns about the election. And I think that the world has deep concerns about the election. You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election.

Now, it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections. What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people.

And my hope is, is that the Iranian people will make the right steps in order for them to be able to express their voices, to express their aspirations. I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past, and that there are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy. How that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide. But I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed.

Should Obama Be Talking Tougher About Iran?

Holly Bailey — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:50:34 GMT

Perhaps not surprisingly, the White House has been very careful about how it responds to what is happening in Iran right now. Speaking out for the first time since Friday’s disputed election results, President Obama said late yesterday that Iranians have a right to have their votes counted, but didn’t go further—and quickly noted why. “It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be, that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football,” Obama told reporters. “Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.

The last thing the White House wants to see is Mahmoud Ajmadinejad accusing the United States of trying to intervene in the election, as he did with Israel in the days before the vote last week. But not everybody agrees. Speaking on the Today Show this morning, Sen. John McCain, Obama’s former GOP rival, said the president should be speaking out more forcefully about what’s happening in Iran. “He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights,” McCain said. “They should not be subjected to four more years of Ahmadinejad and the radical Muslim clerics.”

But as NBC’s First Read notes, Obama’s response isn’t much different than how George H.W. Bush responded to the violence in China’s Tiananmen Square 20 years ago. Should Obama get tougher? Will he? We’ll see the president several times on camera today, beginning with an Oval Office press avail with the president of South Korea. Later today, he’s doing a round of TV interviews to talk about his plan for stepped up regulation of the financial services industry. He’ll no doubt be asked about Iran. Will his language change?

Photos from Iran: Protesters Clash with Police

Daniel Stone — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:49:01 GMT

OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images

The Boston Globe has assembled some of the best photos of the protests today and over the weekend in Iran, the biggest street demonstrations in the country since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The AP reported earlier that at least one protester was shot and killed by police. Some reports put the number as high as seven.

Just a warning: these photos show some violent confrontations. Some, especially toward the bottom, are pretty graphic.