[R-G] Bush Cites Nuclear Risk of Leaving Iraq

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Most leftists in the USA have yet to digest the fact that the White
House is making an argument that it won't withdraw its troops from
Iraq unless and until it succeeds in "regime change" in Iran and
installs a pro-Washington government there, for, otherwise, America
will end up leaving Iraq in the hands of Tehran.*  Leftists are as
incapable of coming to terms with Iran's Islamic government as the
White House and Congress are, so there is no coherent response to the
White House's commitment for "regime change" in Iran.

BTW, Iran and the IAEA achieved an agreement on how to resolve
outstanding issues and set up a timeline for that -- a diplomatic coup
for Tehran -- but the agreement gets immediately faulted, with the
help of the New York Times,** citing only "nuclear experts" who repeat
exactly the same things that were said about Iraq before the US
invasion.

* <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/washington/29prexy.html>
August 29, 2007
Bush Cites Nuclear Risk of Leaving Iraq
By STEVEN LEE MYERS

RENO, Nev., Aug. 28 — President Bush told a receptive audience of
veterans on Tuesday that an American withdrawal from Iraq would
unsettle the entire Middle East, create a haven for Al Qaeda and
embolden a belligerent Iran. He said Tehran's nuclear programs
threatened to put "a region already known for instability and violence
under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

Speaking here before the American Legion's annual convention, Mr. Bush
said competing brands of Islamic extremism — the Sunni model
exemplified by Al Qaeda and a Shiite version that he said was abetted
by Iran — were vying for dominance in Iraq.

That, he said, made it imperative for the United States not to fail in
establishing a pro-American government there.

"I want our citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of
radicalism are allowed to drive us out of the Middle East," he said in
a speech interrupted several times by applause. "The region would be
dramatically transformed in a way that would imperil the civilized
world."

Mr. Bush has previously warned Iran about its involvement in Iraq and
its nuclear programs, but his remarks on Tuesday were especially
forceful, and suggested that he was blending the justification for
staying in Iraq with fears held by members of both parties in Congress
that Iran could emerge as a threat.

** <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html>
August 29, 2007
Plan Released by Iran and U.N. Atomic Agency Is Faulted
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS, Aug. 28 — An agreement between Iran and the United Nations
nuclear agency aimed at allaying suspicions about Tehran's past
nuclear activities is inadequate and is likely to delay further
international sanctions against the country, some Western governments
and nuclear experts say.

On Monday, Iran and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy
Agency released a plan laying out a step-by-step timetable of
cooperation with the goal of resolving by December issues that have
been under investigation for four years. Agency officials have praised
the timetable as a breakthrough and Iran's president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, on Tuesday said the investigation into his country's
nuclear activities was now closed.

"Not one member of the International Atomic Energy Agency has
cooperated as well as Iran," Mr. Ahmadinejad said at a news conference
in Tehran, according to The Associated Press. He added: "So from our
point of view, Iran's nuclear case is closed. Iran is a nuclear nation
and has the nuclear fuel cycle."

Mr. Ahmadinejad repeated his stance that Iran would not buckle under
international pressure to curb its nuclear projects, which Iran
insists are for peaceful purposes, and the United States and some
European nations believe are to make nuclear weapons.

But a number of Western governments, including the United States and
France, as well as leading arms control experts, fault the plan as
evidence of a new and dangerous strategy by Iran to drag out the
process and answer questions about its past treaty violations bit by
bit to avoid further punishment by the United Nations Security
Council.

"There is no way to verify any of Iran's claims — the agency doesn't
get access to people, documents, sites," said David Albright,
president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a
private Washinton research organization. "The agency loses its right
to ask follow-up questions in the future, a really strange development
that sets a bad precedent. You're left wondering whether the I.A.E.A.
was tricked because it was so eager for a deal."

In its plan, the agency announced that Iran had resolved questions
about its past experiments with plutonium, a material that can be used
to make nuclear weapons, although it offered no explanation of how
Tehran had done so. It also said Iran was finally prepared to clear up
other issues, including explaining a document Iran probably received
from Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear engineer, showing how to
make uranium into hemispheres, a shape suitable for use in a weapon.

Although officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency have not
commented since the plan was released, the agency's deputy director,
Olli Heinonen, praised it as "an important milestone" during a visit
to Iran last week in which the plan was finalized. While saying the
process "will take time," he added: "We have in front of us an agreed
work plan. We agreed on modalities on how to implement it. We have a
timeline for the implementation."

But Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute
for Strategic Studies in London, called the document "superficial,"
noting that it "drags negotiations on for many months and runs the
risk that the agency will be left with incomplete and misleading
answers from Iran."

The agreement also makes it easier for Russia and China to oppose new
sanctions in the Security Council, because they can claim that Iran is
showing some cooperation with the international watchdog agency. The
United States and some European governments find that development
worrying, because Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium,
which can be used to make electricity or a bomb, in violation of past
Council resolutions.

"We are at a crucial moment in diplomacy and the international
community could very well lose its unity of purpose," said one senior
French official, who spoke anonymously because he is involved in
negotiations on potential new sanctions. "Meanwhile, Iran is gaining
time."

The United States, which with France and Britain is pushing for a
third round of sanctions against Iran, has expressed its displeasure
with the plan.

Gregory L. Schulte, the American envoy to the atomic agency, told
reporters in Vienna last week that the timetable had "real
limitations." He faulted Iran for refusing the Council's demand that
it freeze its uranium enrichment program and for failing to carry out
the "additional protocol" to Iran's nuclear agreement with the agency.
That protocol gives the agency's inspectors the right to ask for wider
access to Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran agreed last June to draw up a plan within 60 days to give the
agency's nuclear inspectors more access to its nuclear sites and to
answer outstanding questions about its nuclear program.

Details of the timetable will be included in a report for the agency's
35-country governing board that could be released Wednesday. The
report is expected to be more detailed than the timetable, and answer
some criticisms.

Iran has threatened to curb cooperation with the agency if the Council
does not delay a drive for new sanctions. "If they make an irrational
move, then Iran's cooperation" with the agency "will be sterile,"
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said.

--
Yoshie