Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh

TEHRAN, July 15--Iran’s agreement on new inspections of Arak heavy water plant is proof of its good intentions, said Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Speaking in an interview with the state radio on Sunday, Soltaniyeh said any move in the United Nations Security Council against Iran will harm the new approach, ISNA News Agency reported.
The official stressed that Iran is determined to remove concerns of other countries.
“We have taken steps to strengthen Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA but any move in the Security Council will harm the atmosphere of cooperation,“ he said.
He noted that the 5+1 Group (the five veto powers plus Germany) should avoid any unwise move that might create problems in the way of solving the remaining problems.
Referring to Iran’s concurrent talks with the IAEA and the West, he said the remaining issues will be discussed in the next 60 days.
“We have agreed to find solutions before this deadline,“ he said.
Soltaniyeh pointed out that Iran and IAEA are supposed to suggest ways of conducting inspections at the Natanz enrichment plant in one month.
“We want to set the time for inspectors’ presence in the enrichment plant,“ he said, adding that installation of cameras in the enrichment plant is still being discussed.
He also said Iran’s nuclear policy is transparent and its cooperation with the agency will continue.
Soltaniyeh said the western countries demanded suspension of uranium enrichment while the term ’suspension’ is not referred to in IAEA’s articles of association.
“Iran has mastered the enrichment technology and terms like ’suspension’ have lost their political, legal and technical relevance,“ he said.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, July 15--The Taliban were behind the recent terrorist attack on Iran’s Consulate in Kandahar, said an informed source in Foreign Ministry.
He noted that it was the second terrorist attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission in Afghanistan after the bombing of a car belonging to Iran’s Consulate, Fars reported.
The source described such hostile measures by Taliban against Iran as evidence that allegations by British and US officials regarding Iran’s role in Afghanistan are baseless.
The British and the US media, including Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor (a subsidiary of Jane’s Defence), have expressed doubt about the allegations of US military officials on Iran’s interference in Afghanistan.
The deny seeing any evidence of Iranians’ assistance to Afghan opposition groups.

TEHRAN, July 15--Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini reiterated Iran will never stop its nuclear activities.
Speaking in his weekly press conference on Sunday, Hosseini said Iran’s nuclear activities are conducted within a specific framework without politicizing the issue.
Asked about nuclear talks between EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, the spokesman noted that negotiations will continue as in the past.
However, Hosseini said a proposal by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei on holding direct talks between Iran and the US on nuclear issues can be considered.
“ElBaradei’s remarks should be studied with more precision. The goals of the proposal should be determined,“ he said, noting that it is possible to examine aspects of the offer in future talks.
The spokesman noted that it is necessary to discuss aspects of the proposal presented by ElBaradei in talks with the IAEA.
Commenting on the row over an article published in the Persian daily Kayhan on Bahrain, Hosseini pointed out that the writer of the article said it was his personal view and not that of Iran.
“No one expects what is written in newspapers to be considered as the official standpoint of that country,“ he said.
On the likelihood of holding the second round of talks between Iran and the US on Iraq, he said the Iraqi government is presently taking measures to pave the ground for the second round of talks.
Referring to a meeting held in Paris on Lebanon, he assured that Iran will do its best to help resolve the Lebanese crisis.
Hosseini emphasized that the three Iranian islands of the Persian Gulf, namely Abu Mussa, Greater and Lesser Tunbs, are inseparable from Iran.
“Using fake names can never distort historical facts,“ he said.

BAGHDAD, Iraq,
July 15--The largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior US military officer and Iraqi lawmakers, Los Angeles Times reported.
About 45 percent of all foreign militants targeting US troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15 percent are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10 percent are from North Africa, according to official US military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer.
“Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in US detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis,“ he said.
Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior US officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a US official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq’s Sunni Arab insurgency.
He said 50 percent of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.
The situation has left the US military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against US forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
Some analysts contend that Saudi Arabia is allowing fighters sympathetic to Al-Qaeda to go to Iraq so they won’t create havoc at home.
Iraqi Shiite lawmaker Sami Askari, an advisor to Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, accused Saudi officials of a deliberate policy to sow chaos in Baghdad.
“The fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia has strong intelligence resources, and it would be hard to think that they are not aware of what is going on,“ he said.
Askari also alleged that imams at Saudi mosques call for jihad, or holy war, against Iraq’s Shiites and that the government had funded groups causing unrest in Iraq’s largely Shiite south. Sunni extremists regard Shiites as unbelievers.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, July 15--Three-time Asian Cup champion Iran rallied from a two-goal deficit Sunday to draw 2-2 with China and move into a strong position to qualify for the Asian Cup quarterfinals.
The result left both teams on four points after two games, but Iran has a far easier assignment in the last round of Group C games against struggling hosts Malaysia, while China will take on Uzbekistan, AP reported.
China took the lead in the seventh minute via a Shao Jiayi free kick that Iranian keeper Hassan Roudbarian appeared a little late to react to, and managed only to deflect it into the net.
The Chinese doubled the lead in the 33rd minute through unmarked Mao Jianqing, with his shot beating Roudbarian at the near post, again raising questions about the goalkeeper’s positioning.
Iran gave itself a much-needed lifeline just before halftime when Fereidoun Zandi rocketed home a perfectly-placed long-range free kick.
China held out well against the tide until the 74th minute when substitute Javed Nekounam rose to meet a cross from the right and headed home an accurate and powerful header.
Iran remained on the front foot, but could not find the go-ahead goal as the referee dosed out a series of yellow cards.

SEOUL, South Korea, July 15--North Korea confirmed on Sunday it has shut down its Yongbyon atomic reactor, the first step in a process designed to rid it of nuclear weapons.
“We shut down the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and allowed the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) personnel to monitor it on the 14th, when the first shipment of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil arrived,“ a foreign ministry spokesman told the official (North) Korean Central News Agency.
The agency’s report emailed to AFP was the first confirmation from Pyongyang of the closure. The US State Department said earlier it had been informed by the North of the shutdown.
The shutdown of the reactor, which produces plutonium for nuclear weapons, was the first step in a six-nation February nuclear disarmament deal.
“We have fulfilled our promises in advance...which shows our commitment to the implementation of the agreement,“ the spokesman told KNCA.
The North had earlier insisted on first receiving all 50,000 tons of fuel oil promised in compensation for the shutdown.
The first shipment of 6,200 tons arrived early Saturday in the North from South Korea. A 10-strong team of IAEA inspectors arrived the same day.
“The provision of such alternative energy as heavy fuel oil is not a charitable aid, but a compensation for the shutdown of our nuclear facilities,“ the spokesman said.
“The IAEA activities in Yongbyon, which do not constitute an inspection, will be limited to verification and monitoring (the shutdown).“

MAQUOKETA, USA, July 15--The US needs help from Syria and Iran in stabilizing Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday.
He also called the Iraqi prime minister a weak leader, AP reported.
Edwards again said that if he were president today, he would immediately reduce the number of US troops in Iraq by about 50,000.
“The Iraqis are going to have to take responsibility, and they haven’t,“ he told people at a campaign stop in Iowa.
The former senator told reporters that the US “should be making our own evaluation about the circumstances in Iraq“ and that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki has not proved effective in stopping violence.
“The Sunni leadership is very fragmented. Other countries in the region, including US foes Iran and Syria, must become involved in Iraq’s future,“ Edwards said.
“We need to engage them directly into helping to stabilize Iraq.“

Jonathan Cook

Hezbollah’s resistance against the aggressions of the Zionist Israeli regime during the 33-day war made hegemonic powers reconsider their Mideast policies. It also inspired resistance movements in the region and across the world to consider Hezbollah as a model.
Israel’s defeat was followed by a wave of criticisms inside the regime, which appointed the Winograd committee to reverse some of the damage to Israel’s military image.
Iran Daily’s Amir Tajik interviewed Jonathan Cook, senior political analyst, to discuss several aspects of the 33-day war and the role of Israel and the US in the Middle East.
A British journalist and writer based in Nazareth in occupied Palestine, Cook has written several books on Middle East issues. Graduated with honors in philosophy and politics from Southampton University, he has a postgraduate diploma in journalism from Cardiff University and a Master’s in Middle Eastern studies. Excerpts:

AMIR TAJIK: You have declared that Israel’s attack on Lebanon’s Hezbollah was based on a prepared script. Which countries do you think contributed to this script?
JONATHAN COOK: I don’t think there is too much doubt about who was involved in writing this script. It was a cabal inside the Israeli and US political and security establishments. My guess is that the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was only marginally in the picture. There is a common misperception in the West that Israel is not only a democracy but that it is a normal regime in terms of its political structure. What isn’t appreciated is that the army and government are more like two ’faces’ of the same set of institutions, which is why the same personnel move so effortlessly between them. In the most important areas of life, the army is really in charge of the country.
We have quite a lot of evidence for how the script was drafted, a process that I describe in detail in my forthcoming book, Israel and the Clash of Civilizations.
According to reports in the US media, for more than a year before the war on Lebanon, Israeli commanders had been discussing an attack on Lebanon with the Pentagon, which at the time was decisively under the control of an ultra-hawkish group known as the neocons--American policymakers with close ideological ties to the Israeli right. It seems that both the US and Israel were agreed that they needed to find a pretext to attack Lebanon.

Why attack Lebanon?
I think we can safely guess that the point was to prepare the ground for a military attack on Iran. Back in 2004, Israeli generals had warned that an attack on Iran would prompt intense rocket fire from Hezbollah over the northern border, so both the US and Israel agreed that Hezbollah had to be dealt with first. There is nothing worse for an army than fighting on several fronts at the same time. Crushing Hezbollah and Syria was therefore seen as the first stage before a strike against Iran. Israel’s failure to deal with Hezbollah’s rockets has thrown the whole plan off kilter. That is why we are seeing a lack of policy direction in both Washington and Tel Aviv. Now they genuinely are at a loss at what to do next.

Were the Qana attack and demolition of the UN building part of this script?
That’s too cynical, I think. Certainly Qana was an entirely predictable outcome of Israel’s over-reliance on airpower when it realized it could not launch a ground invasion of Lebanon without a major loss of its soldiers’ lives. In fact, a former head of Military Intelligence, Uri Saguy, who was one of Ehud Olmert’s informal advisers during the war, told the Israeli media recently that he had warned there would be another Qana.
As for the attack on the UN building, that still needs explaining by Israel. My suspicion is that it was a consequence of widespread feelings among Israeli soldiers, including commanders, of loathing for anything related to the UN. The UN’s reputation has been blackened in Israel by its long association with helping the Palestinians, particularly in the refugee camps in the occupied territories. Still, I doubt that such malevolence can be attributed to a ’script’ drafted at the political or military level.

Israel didn’t attack non-Muslim districts of Lebanon during the 33-day war. Was it deliberate?
There was a conscious attempt by Israel at the start of its attack on Lebanon to incite a civil war on sectarian lines. This goal was repeatedly voiced by Israeli officials. The point was to get the Christians, Druze and Sunnis to “turn on“ the Shia, and great disappointment was expressed when the opposite happened. Such simplistic assumptions about how Arab society can be manipulated are typical of the Israeli security establishment, which has a history of making profoundly wrong-headed judgments about Arabs and Muslims over many decades. In fact, there is a well-established tradition of high-profile racists heading the Israeli academy and, of course, the political and security establishments. Not surprisingly, Israeli thinking about the “Arab mind“ has now infected much of the American academia and military.

Do you agree that Israel is the Middle East’s US military base?
It is one such base, but there are many other countries in the region that fulfill, or potentially fulfill, a similar role. The intention was clearly to make Iraq another base--that model has been officially proposed by the White House. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made it plain that US forces will continue with a permanent presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. For similar reasons, Afghanistan has become another American base. But the US has a footing in many other countries in the region, including Turkey, Jordan, the Persian Gulf states, Central Asia, and so on.
The key difference in the case of Israel is that it is not treated as a military staging post as these other countries are. In fact, the US army is usually loath to be seen relying on Israel in this kind of direct fashion because of the effect it has on feeling in the Arab world. Instead, Israel’s army train and advise the US on how to function and fight in the Middle East, and the two share intelligence. It is an arrangement that is seen as cooperation between equals.

What ambiguities did the Winograd report clarify for both Israel and the US? And what ambiguities did the report itself have?
The Winograd Committee’s purpose was not really about clarifying anything; to do that, the government would have had to set up a much more serious and independent commission of inquiry. Winograd was about apportioning blame in a way that would reverse some of the damage done to Israel’s military image by its failures in Lebanon, and about acting as a safety valve for some of the frustrations of a wider Israeli society that felt betrayed during the war. Once the committee was established, both the prime minister and the Israeli army jointly used Winograd as a way to deflect the harshest criticism away from the army command and towards the civilian leadership.
Real criticism of the army--which it richly deserved--might have further dented what is known here as ’deterrence’, that is, promoting fear among neighboring states that Israel is militarily invincible.
The surprising thing about Winograd report is how little it seems to have discovered about what decisions were taken and why--the real point, one would assume, of holding such an inquiry. For example, Winograd admits being unable to find out how Olmert reached the decision to go to war--in what many officials have noted was “record time“. There are no records of telephone conversations or meetings between Olmert and the then Chief of Staff Dan Halutz. Another reason there may be no official record of this decision-making process is that such a record would embarrassingly reveal that outside actors, namely the Americans, were closely involved.
A core concern in Israel not addressed by Winograd is the fear that the Israeli army’s dismal performance may one day lead the US to reconsider Israel’s role as its pitbull in the Middle East. This underpins a spiritual angst in Israel following the war that has yet to be dispelled.

Why didn’t Arab regimes support Hezbollah during the 33-day war? Wasn’t Hezbollah fighting Israel on behalf of the Arab world?
There are a few obvious reasons for the lack of support. One was that Hezbollah was regarded as a proxy for Iran. The Arab states were not comfortable seeing a Shiite militia, backed by a Shiite, non-Arab state, succeed where they have so consistently failed. Then there was the problem that Hezbollah’s resistance to Israel contrasted with the Arab world’s own lackluster attempts at standing up to Israel. Hezbollah’s popularity inevitably came at the Arab states’ expense, and was presumably seen as having the potential to inflame popular feeling within their own borders to a dangerous degree. And, of course, the Arab states that are usually referred to as ’moderate’ by the West, such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, have earned that label only because they have been induced to cooperate and collaborate with the West and Israel. It was not, therefore, surprising that they sided with the West against Hezbollah.