p{float: right; margin-left: 10px}. !/images/23.jpg!
“According to IRIB,”:http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=241335&n=35 Iran’s
bq. new permanent representative to the United Nations *Mohammad Khazaie* submitted his credentials to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon Wednesday.
Previous post on Zarif’s new job “here.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1486/new-job-for-zarif
p{float: right; margin-left: 10px}. !/images/21.jpg!
According to “MNA”:http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=523629 Javad Zarif, former Iranian Ambassador to the UN, has landed a new gig at Iran’s MFA:
bq. Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki has appointed Mohammad-Javad Zarif as his senior assistant, the Foreign Ministry press office reported on Tuesday.
Makes me feel a bit better. Zarif is a smart guy and, I think, one of the more reasonable people in the Iranian government, at least on the nuclear issue.
Courtesy of ACA’s own Alex Bolfrass, here’s a screenshot from the new Iranian video game I “blogged about”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1473/new-iranian-video-game recently.
!/images/19.jpg!
More shots can be found “here.”:http://www.sueddeutsche.de/computer/bildstrecke/8/123831/p0/?img=0.0
Remember when Bernard Lewis “suggested that”:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768 Iran might produce “cataclysmic events” for 22 August, 2006? And then they, like, totally happened?
That was tragic.
I doubt this will be available for my MacBook anytime soon, but MNA “reports”:http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=515669 that a new Iranian nuclear-themed video game is to hit the streets on Monday.
It sounds pretty sweet:
The main character of the game enters several countries in eight stages.
In the game, *two nuclear physicists, Saeid Kusha and his wife Maryam, are detained by U.S. troops during their journey to Karbala, Iraq.*
*In order to win the game, Iranian security officer Bahman Nasseri, who is a friend of Kusha’s father, must free Maryam and Saeid.* He also finds out that several other Iranians are imprisoned in Iraq’s prisons.
Fortunately, there’s a discount for your children b/c the game appears to be aimed at kids.
Says MNA
bq. The game will be sold at a discounted price compared to other cultural products so that it will be accessible to all children.
Get in line.
Previous Iranian video game post “here.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1421/port-rescue-defense-in-the-firing-line
In all of the recent discussion about the Gabala radar (the one that Russia leases in Azerbaijan), one bit of news crept out a little while back that I think is worth highlighting.
Apparently a Russian TV crew was allowed to film at the radar station. According to the 10 June broadcast, the station used to track Iranian and Iraqi missile launches back in the day:
bq. The station proved its efficiency back in the time of the Iran-Iraq war. *The Soviet intelligence service received live data on the two warring sides’ missile strikes: the missiles would still be in the air, but the Soviet Union would already know where they were flying, at what speed, and whether they were going to hit the target.*
The radar, it seems, still does this.
According to Sergey Starostin, the Qabala radar station commander,
bq. In January 2007, *a test launch of a Shihab-3 operational-tactical missile from the territory of Iran to the Arabian Sea was spotted.*
According to the announcer, the missile had “*a range of no more than 2,000 km.*”
This is, I think, the first official source I’ve seen which independently confirms that Iran has flight-tested a missile with such a range. The reporting on the subject that I’ve seen cites what the Iranians _say_ about the missile.
For example, I wrote in a “recent _ACT_ article”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_01-02/IranNK.asp that
bq. During a Nov. 12 television interview, Major General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps indicated that Iran tested a Shahab-3 capable of traveling 2,000 kilometers. Tehran has previously claimed to possess a missile with such a range.
The “2006 NASIC report”:http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/NASIC2006.pdf says that Iran has a missile with a range of about 2,000 km. But that estimate is itself based on “statements by Iranian officials.”
Please do something less dorky now, if you can.
A few days ago, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns “told CNN”:http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/13/iran.taliban/index.html that there is “irrefutable evidence” that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban.
Burns asserted that the weapons are
bq. “certainly coming from the government of Iran. It’s coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government.”
Interestingly, _AP_ reported “the same day”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070613/ap_on_re_eu/iran_taliban&printer=1;_ylt=Avxkb5oRcBl4DMklCLsWYQRbbBAF that the DOS backed off Burns’ accusations a bit. State Dept. spokesperson Sean McCormack said that “[w]e absolutely are certain that there are Iranian-origin weapons flowing into Afghanistan to the Taliban,” but added that
bq. We do not know the extent of any Iranian government involvement at this point.
[As an aside, Spencer Ackerman “noted”:http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003424.php that SecDef Bob Gates has changed his mind a bit regarding the Iranian government’s involvement in shipping weapons to Afghanistan.]
I don’t want to get into the veracity of these claims, but I would like to point out that such allegations could well be used by the US (or others) to push for more stringent UNSC sanctions on Iran.
p=. *The Resolution Says So*
“UNSC resolution 1747”:http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc8980.doc.htm says that
bq. Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel
I “wrote in April”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_04/SecurityCouncil.asp that UNSC resolution 1737 “targeted Iran ‘s nuclear and missile programs,” but the latest one, according to a “European diplomat,” brought more “political” pressure on Tehran. That official, however, “emphasized that ‘all we want is for Iran to end its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.'” That suggests to me that at least some countries might oppose using the weapons issue as a pretext for imposing new sanctions on Iran.
I bet that the US, however, might embrace such an action with enthusiasm. “Burns said 24 March”:http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2007/82163.htm that the weapons ban does not simply address the nuclear question, but is part of an effort to
bq. block and contain and limit Iranian power in the Middle East….blocking their ability and now making illegal their ability to export arms to anybody, that’s a significant step forward.
Lest you think that Burns has forgotten about this, he told CNN that Iran is “in outright violation” of resolution 1747 because Tehran is transferring weapons to Afghanistan, as well as places like Lebanon and Iraq.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
On a louder note, watch Ministry doing Skinny Puppy 17 years ago:
Short answer: Dunno.
Since that answer wouldn’t have cut it with Miles (Pomper, _ACT_ editor), I “wrote a bit more”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_06/Iran.asp for the most recent issue of _ACT_.
p=. *The Cascades*
This is obvious, but one “European diplomat” told me that Iran has _not_ demonstrated that it can run its centrifuges for an extended period of time. The 8 cascades in the commercial Natanz facility are _not_ linked together, another such diplomat told me. [The IAEA DG Mohamed ElBaradei’s “last report”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1441/iaea-report implies this, but doesn’t say so explicitly. I wrote about the report “here”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1443/more-thoughts-on-iaea-iran-report and “here.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1442/thoughts-on-iaea-iran-report ]
We know that the Iranians missed their target date of installing 3,000 centrifuges by the end of May, but they may yet complete the task in short order. Unless they don’t.
I wrote that
bq. a diplomatic source in Vienna close to the IAEA told _Arms Control Today_ -April- May 25 that *Iran is able to build one 164-centrifuge cascade every 10 days. At that rate, Iran will be able to install approximately 3,000 centrifuges by the end of June,* the source said.
More recently, ElBaradei “told reporters”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear&printer=1;_ylt=AtPjTy3FawLY6oJ7olTApRBbbBAF that Iran “could have *just under 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges running in series by the end of July,”* _AP_ reported.
[ Jeffrey has a good “post”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1545/18-cascades-for-iran-by-august up about this subject, which includes a link to the audio file of ElBaradei’s remarks. Also, check out “this post”:http://verificationthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/06/iranian-centrifuge-construction.html from Andreas Persbo. He has two pretty cool tables illustrating Iran’s possible future progress in installing centrifuges. ]
Incidentally, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said in April that Tehran will take up to 4 years to install all 50,000+ centrifuges in the facility.
p=. *So How Good Are Those Centrifuges?*
Some of us have wondered about Iran’s ability to make centrifuges of sufficient quality and quantity. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of clarity on this subject either. I wrote that
[A] Vienna diplomat said that *Tehran can produce enough centrifuge components for its projected enrichment needs.* But a knowledgeable source told _Arms Control Today_ that *Iran may not be “fully independent” in making such components.*
Asked about the quality of Iran’s centrifuges, the Vienna source added that *Iran “can make functional machines.”* Separately, a European diplomat said that *it is not clear that Iran can do so, explaining that “quite a high number” of centrifuges have crashed at rates “higher than one would expect.”*
p=. *The UF6*
There have also been “questions about”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1445/iran-and-uf6-a-bit-more the quality of Iran’s UF6.
That’s still the case. I wrote that:
bq. Whether Iran’s uranium hexafluoride is of sufficient purity is unclear. The Vienna diplomat said that *Iran is using its own feedstock, noting that the material is “good enough” to produce enriched uranium.* But the two other European diplomats told _Arms Control Today_ that *Iran is probably using uranium hexafluoride obtained from China more than a decade ago.*
Helpful, I know.
One interesting sidenote: I also found out that, according to “one diplomat,” Iran is currently attempting to convert its own uranium oxide into UF6. The process, however, “has not been perfected,” the diplomat said. Iran had previously been converting uranium oxide acquired from South Africa, he added.
Anyway, it’s Friday. Go home.
Bernard Gwertzman has a “great interview”:http://www.cfr.org/publication/13466/ with CEIP’s Karim Sadjadpour. A lot of it is about the IRGC.
This one paragraph about the Corps’ ideological composition caught my attention:
bq. The Revolutionary Guards comprise about 150,000 in number. They’re not a monolithic group. *There’s a common perception right now that the Revolutionary Guards are very closely aligned with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But I would say it’s the opposite. President Ahmadinejad has to pander to the Revolutionary Guards to project his own power, because he doesn’t have a very strong popular base.* And it’s difficult to describe them as a group of 150,000 hardliners because *in 2001 three-quarters of them voted for the liberal Mohammed Khatami’s re-election as president.* In some ways, the Revolutionary Guards are more reflective of the Iranian society than we think…
I would have assumed that a group of 150,000 Iranians wouldn’t be monolithic, but I hadn’t seen those numbers before.
Speaking of matters Iranian that I don’t know much about, Karim also had a good “piece”:http://www.twq.com/07winter/docs/07winter_sadjadpour.pdf in _TWQ_ about Iranian public opinion RE: the nuclear program.
Please note that no one was kicked in the nuts during the writing of this post.
Laura Rozen has an “article”:http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/laura_rozen/2007/05/the_hardliners_lose_a_round.html in the _Guardian_ about the demise of ISOG. It includes a good discussion about N Burns’ motivation for getting rid of it.
Part of it was because Burns thought ISOG
bq. *was leading to confusion – and turf battles – over the thrust of US policy toward Iran.* While many factions inside and outside the US government favour regime change in Iran, Condoleezza Rice recently said that the US is instead forging an international coalition to pressure Iran to change its roguish behaviour. “We’re very clear. The policy of the US government is behaviour change. We’re on the record, a million times,” said one US official involved with Iran policy says of the demise of ISOG.
Moreover, ISOG became irrelevant once regime change was off the table:
bq. Another Iran hand in the US government says *Burns’ problem with ISOG was more pragmatic: he thought ISOG was having too many meetings and wasn’t doing anything.* “ISOG started with a more robust expanse and aim…. but it had become somewhat irrelevant,” says a congressional staffer knowledgeable about US policy toward Iran. “*Once regime change was taken off the table, the raison d’etre of ISOG was somewhat removed. People were meeting for the sake of meeting, and it lost its salience.*”
Given that ISOG was “pretty damn busy”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1446/end-of-hot-isog-action a few months ago, it seems reasonable to infer that its mission was indeed about regime change.
Laura also notes that
bq. one US official suggested that the Senate Foreign Relations committee may want to ask some new questions – such as whether any entities have been created to succeed ISOG.
Good idea.