NucNews - November 21, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- africa Zimbabwe Finds Uranium, To Make Electricity - Mugabe REUTERS ZIMBABWE: November 21, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33571/newsDate/21-Nov-2005/story.htm HARARE - Zimbabwe has discovered uranium but intends to mine the commodity only to generate electricity, not for use in making nuclear weapons, President Robert Mugabe said in remarks broadcast on Sunday. "We have found uranium, which is used to make electricity (and) the bombs that you hear about ... but when we mine it we would not want it to be used in bomb making ... We would use it to give us electricity," Mugabe said on state television. The television said Mugabe spoke at a function at a plant owned by state power utility Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority. It did not give details. Zimbabwe imports 35 percent of its electricity from South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia and DRC to augment domestic supplies but ZESA has battled to pay for imports in recent years as a result of biting foreign currency shortages. The crunch has resulted in frequent power cuts that have disrupted industrial production as the southern African country battles its worst economic crisis in decades. -------- business High-Tech Firms/Executives Sentenced in Export Case, Reports U.S. Attorney BOSTON, Nov. 21 /PRNewswire/ http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20051121/21nov20051427.html Two New England high-technology companies and their top executives were sentenced late Friday, November 18, 2005, in federal court for violating United States export law in connection with the export to India of equipment that is used to manufacture a material that improves the accuracy of strategic ballistic missiles with nuclear capabilities. United States Attorney Michael J. Sullivan; Matthew J. Etre, Acting Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New England, and John McKenna, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement, Boston Field Office, announced that FIBER MATERIALS, INC., of Biddeford, Maine; its wholly-owned subsidiary, MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL of Acton, Massachusetts, and the companies' top two officers, WALTER L. LACHMAN, age 72, of Concord, Massachusetts, and MAURICE H. SUBILIA, Jr., age 58, of Kennebunkport, Maine, were sentenced by U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock. LACHMAN was sentenced to 3 years' probation, the first year of which is to be spent in home detention. SUBILIA was sentenced to 3 years' probation, the first 6 months of which is to be spent in community confinement (halfway house), to be followed by 1 year of home detention. The conditions of home confinement permit each defendant to work on a regular schedule and to leave home for medical appointments and for other purposes with the approval of the Court. A fine of $250,000 was imposed on defendants LACHMAN, SUBILIA, and FIBER MATERIALS, INC. No fine was imposed on MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL because it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FIBER MATERIALS, INC. The defendants were each found guilty on March 31, 1995, by a federal trial jury of one count of violating the Export Administration Act and one count of Conspiracy. Evidence presented during the trial proved that LACHMAN, SUBILIA, and the two corporations conspired to, and did, export a control panel in April 1988 from the United States to the Defense Research Development Laboratory in India, intending for it to operate a production-size hot isostatic press to be subsequently provided by the defendants. A hot isostatic press is used in the processing of a material called carbon-carbon -- a very lightweight, heat- absorbing material which is used for thermal protection systems and has applications in missile nosetips, rocket nozzles and re-entry heatshields. The control panel required a special export license from the U.S. Department of Commerce for export from the United States to India. The evidence showed that no such license was ever obtained by the defendants. The other equipment was manufactured abroad and therefore did not require a U.S. export license. The control panel and the isostatic press were sold to Agni -- the defense laboratory developing India's principal nuclear-capable ballistic missile. The contract under which this equipment was supplied was between the defendants and India's Defence Research and Development Laboratory ("DRDL") and was signed by the Project Director of Agni. Evidence presented in connection with sentencing established that the U.S. government and its allies were very concerned at the time of this export about anything that might contribute to India's efforts to develop a nuclear weapon delivery system, and the defendants knew of those concerns. The evidence established that a production-size hot isostatic press was, in fact, later manufactured in Europe at the defendants' direction, and shipped from there to India. In 1991 and 1992, SUBILIA and FIBER MATERIALS, INC. directed employees to travel to India to install and make fully operational the carbon-carbon processing equipment in India, which included connecting the control panel to the production-size hot isostatic press. DRDL's parent organization, the Defence Research Development Organisation has publicly listed one of the accomplishments of the Agni missile program as the successful establishment of re-entry technology with a carbon-carbon heat shield (http://www.drdo.org/products/missile.htm). After trial in 1995, the defendants filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the guilty verdict, arguing that the export regulation's use of the term "specially designed" was unconstitutionally vague. The District Court did not rule on this motion until 2003, at which time it allowed the motion and vacated the convictions. In its opinion, the District Court called the defendants' conduct "fundamentally reprehensible" and said the defendants "sought -- for their own private economic advantage and heedless of the national security interests of this country -- to exploit imprecision in the regulatory regime for controlling exports," and, in the process, provided equipment to India which, "may facilitate nuclear weaponry and thereby threaten stability in South Asia." Nevertheless, the District Court concluded that the operative export regulation was void for vagueness. The United States appealed, and in October, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the District Court and reinstated the convictions, finding the term "specially designed" sufficiently clear. In sentencing the defendants, the District Court determined that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines applicable to the defendants' offenses call for a sentence between 41 and 51 months' imprisonment for LACHMAN and between 51 and 63 months' imprisonment for SUBILIA. The Guidelines for SUBILIA were higher because the District Court found that SUBILIA had committed perjury on three different occasions in his testimony at trial. The District Court ruled, however, that this case falls outside the Guidelines, which are now advisory rather than mandatory, because the defendants could not have foreseen that their export would have had more than a minimal effect on Indian missile programs. The District Court also considered the length of the delay in the case as a factor that should mitigate the sentences. The case was investigated by the U.S. Customs Service and the Department of Commerce. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Despena F. Billings in Sullivan's Anti- Terrorism and National Security Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney James D. Herbert in Sullivan's Organized Crime Strike Force Unit. U.S. Attorney CONTACT: Samantha Martin of U.S. Attorney's Office, +1-617-748-3139 -------- europe Hungary's parliament overwhelmingly backs 20-year extension for Paks nuclear plant Associated Press (November 21, 2005) http://pepei.pennnet.com/news/display_news_story.cfm?Section=WIREN&Category=HOME&NewsID=128060 BUDAPEST, Hungary - Hungarian lawmakers on Monday overwhelmingly voted to support a government plan extending by 20 years the life of Hungary's only nuclear power plant. The parliamentary resolution passed 339-4, with eight abstentions and 35 absentees. The plant in the town of Paks, 120 kilometers (70 miles) south of Budapest, supplies around 40 percent of Hungary's electric power. Its four reactors were built between 1982 and 1986, with the newest to have been decommissioned by 2016, at the end of its 30-year life. While the resolution had no legal force, the vote showed that all political factions supported the plan. Several environmental groups demonstrated outside parliament last week against the extension, saying lawmakers were insufficiently informed of the effects of keeping the power plant in operation. In April 2003, an accident in the No. 2 reactor led to small amounts of radioactive gas being released into the atmosphere after uranium fuel rods overheated and warped due to a failed cooling system. The damaged rods had to be sealed in the deep-water tank next to the reactor and have remained stranded there since. Monday's vote in parliament also approved the creation of a storage facility for nuclear waste near the southern town of Bataapati. Officials said the facility would be needed even without the 20-year extension for Paks. ---- Nuclear Waste Transport Bound for Disputed Storage Site Crosses German Border November 21, 2005 — By Melissa Eddy, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9285 BERLIN — A shipment of nuclear waste bound for a disputed storage site in the north of the country crossed Sunday into Germany, where thousands of police were guarding its route from anti-nuclear demonstrators. About a dozen activists greeted the train as it crossed the border from France without incident, said Franz Blang, a police spokesman in the town of Woerth. The train was later temporarily blocked by a group of activists while passing through the southwestern state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, authorities there said. Earlier Sunday, the train was temporarily delayed after dozens of French protesters threw firecrackers onto the rails. Demonstrations by French nuclear activists remained peaceful, however, as they commemorated a protester who was hit and killed by a train during a similar shipment of nuclear waste a year ago. On Saturday, protesters in the German town of Lueneburg, 50 kilometers (30 miles) southeast of Hamburg, threw rocks at police. Lueneburg is on the stretch of road that is the last leg the nuclear waste will take on its route from a reprocessing plant in La Hague, France, to a temporary storage facility in Gorleben, Germany and traditionally a gathering point for demonstrators. Yet authorities said participation among the anti-nuclear demonstrators was down to only just more than 3,000. The number of demonstrations has also dropped to 28 demonstrations, from the 100 that were organized in 2003, they said. The shipment left Saturday from a reprocessing plant in the Normandy coastal town of La Hague to a hotly contested storage facility in Gorleben, Germany. The annual waste transport, due to arrive in Gorleben late Monday, has become a favorite target of anti-nuclear demonstrators, thousands of whom are expected to protest along the route in the coming week. Some 3,100 people turned out in the town of Hitzacker to protest the waste storage, police said, with 40 tractors accompanying the protesters. The storage facility is disliked by local farmers who say they fear having radioactive waste in the area undermines the reputation of their produce. German authorities have dedicated 10,000 officers to patrolling the route before the transport's arrival. --- German Protesters Disrupt Nuclear Waste Transfer REUTERS GERMANY: November 21, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33561/newsDate/21-Nov-2005/story.htm BERLIN - German anti-nuclear activists briefly held up a train carrying nuclear waste from a French reprocessing facility on its way to a storage depot in northern Germany on Sunday, police said. The train with 12 wagons of nuclear waste sealed in glass containers was delayed for 90 minutes near the southwestern town of Bietigheim-Bissingen when around a dozen anti-nuclear protesters demonstrated on the tracks. Police detained them. The train was heading for the northern Gorleben interim storage depot, where it is due to arrive on Monday. Thousands of activists are waiting near the depot to stage more protests to disrupt the transportation of the waste. The protests, which began on Friday, have been mostly peaceful. Around 15,000 police are accompanying the nuclear waste transfer in Germany. Activists protesting against such shipments have clashed with police in previous years. In 2002, protesters disrupted the passage of a train by burning tyres on the tracks and by chaining themselves to the rails. On Sunday in Gusborn near Gorleben, several hundred demonstrators joined 150 farmers in a blockade with their tractors on a street leading to the Gorleben depot, a temporary facility that protesters fear will become a permanent waste depot. They also worry it will contaminate the local water supply. Earlier, about 1,000 people took part in an anti-nuclear rally in Gusborn, including some on horses and bicycles. The waste is originally produced in Germany but transported to La Hague in France for reprocessing. France insists the waste must return to the country of origin. During a waste transfer last November an environmentalist was run over and killed when he chained himself to the railway tracks at Nancy, eastern France. -------- iran EU, US defer UN action on Iran: diplomats By Louis Charbonneau and Mark Heinrich Reuters Monday, November 21, 2005; 2:42 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112100554_pf.html VIENNA (Reuters) - EU and U.S. envoys will not push immediately to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council in order to give Russia time to ease a crisis triggered by suspicions Tehran is seeking a nuclear arsenal, diplomats said on Monday. They said a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Thursday would shelve a resolution to refer Iran for possible U.N. sanctions in favor of a statement demanding Iran come clean on its atomic work, focusing on a suspected bomb-making document. "There will be no resolution for sure. The Russians and Chinese oppose this," said a diplomat from the so-called EU3 -- France, Britain and Germany -- ahead of Thursday's governing board session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In September, the IAEA board passed a resolution declaring that Iran had violated the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by hiding potentially weapons-related atomic fuel activities from the IAEA for 18 years until 2003. The resolution called for the Islamic republic's breaches to be reported to the Security Council, which has power to impose economic sanctions, but set no date for any referral action. Iran, whose president last month said Israel should be "wiped off the map," denies Western allegations that it has a clandestine atomic bomb program. It insists that its nuclear ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity. Last week, U.S. President George W. Bush said he backed an initiative by Russian President Vladimir Putin to end a months-long impasse in the EU3's drive to persuade Iran to abandon the most sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. In exchange, Iran would get economic and political benefits. "We've decided to give the Russians room to see if their proposal will fly and to test Tehran's receptiveness to it. This does not mean there is disarray or weakness within the EU3," a senior European diplomat told Reuters. RUSSIAN COMPROMISE PLAN Putin's initiative would allow Iran to continue converting uranium ore into gas if the most critical stage of nuclear fuel production -- uranium enrichment -- is transferred to Russia as part of a joint venture. This in theory would prevent Iran from obtaining highly enriched fuel suitable to making nuclear weapons. Iran has not formally rejected the Russian idea but has stressed repeatedly that it aims to enrich uranium domestically, calling this a sovereign right it would never renounce. But Western concerns were heightened on Friday by a report from IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei that Iran had given agency inspectors a few pages of what diplomats described as a design for the core of a nuclear bomb. Tehran said it received the pages unsolicited on the black market but IAEA officials said the case was being investigated. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow would favor sending Iran to the Security Council if there was a real danger that Tehran was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But he said there was no such threat at this time. "We do not rule out that the Iranian question could be passed on to the Security Council if a real threat of WMD non-proliferation -- especially nuclear weapons -- appears. At the moment we do not see such a threat," he was quoted as saying by Russia's RIA Novosti news agency. Diplomats said the IAEA board was also loath to seek a resolution as long as such a move clearly lacked consensus on the 35-nation board. Big powers Russia and China as well as large developing countries such as Brazil oppose referral. Russia and China both have major economic ties with Iran. Moscow is building a $1 billion nuclear power plant at Bushehr and Beijing needs Iran's vast energy resources to meet the demands of its booming economy. (Additional reporting by Saul Hudson in Washington, Madeline Chambers in London, Paul Taylor in Brussels and Oliver Bullough in Moscow) ---- India for not referring Iran to UN Monday, November 21, 2005 keralanext.com http://www.keralanext.com/news/print.asp?id=440963 New Delhi, Nov 21 : India said Monday that it was keen to keep Iran's nuclear issue within the ambit of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the Left immediately hailed the decision. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told his leftist allies, which have been pressurising the government not to vote against Tehran at the Nov 24 IAEA meeting in Vienna, that diplomatic efforts were on not to refer Iran's controversial nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. "The government informed the Left parties of the progress made through diplomatic efforts. It was noted that the government's intention was to ensure that the matter remains within the jurisdiction of the IAEA," Finance Minister P. Chidambaram told reporters after the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)-Left coordination meeting. The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), which along with its allies had been warning the government of serious consequences if the government voted with the US against Iran, said it was "satisfied" with the government response. "The government briefed us about the diplomatic efforts to avoid sending the Iran nuclear issue to the UN. We are satisfied with the manner in which the government is trying to avoid such a situation," CPI-M leader Sitaram Yechury said. India had voted in support of the European Union resolution at the Sep 24 meet of the IAEA in Vienna to refer Iran's case to the Security Council if Tehran persisted with allegedly developing nuclear weapons. New Delhi's stand ignited a storm in India, with the Left parties, which provide crucial legislative support to the ruling coalition, lashing out at the government and accusing it of bowing to US pressure. The government repeatedly denied the charge and said it took the decision in its own interests. It also said that it was in touch with Iran. The coordination committee meeting, held at the prime minister's residence, also discussed the government's proposal to disinvest some loss-making public sector units to raise resources and a proposed legislation on the pension fund regulatory board. ---- Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented? Or will the world allow it to happen? November 21, 2005 by Jorge Hirsch Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8089 The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. Unlike in the case of Iraq, it will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact. We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U.S. bombs were nuclear. Both Americans and the rest of the world have left the door wide open for this to happen. The international community has failed to declare the Iraq war illegal (e.g., Resolution 1483) under international law, implicitly condoning the next similar U.S. adventure. Furthermore, since the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24, 2005, it is "legal" for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict with Iran. And the discussion now riveting the country's attention, about whether the administration misused faulty intelligence to justify attacking Iraq, plays right into the plan to attack Iran. Many critics of the war are implicitly conceding that if the intelligence had been right, the attack on Iraq would have been justified. However, the charges that were false for Iraq are true for Iran, or are at least widely accepted to be true. Since after the fact there isn't much one can do about it, except, in Cheney's words "clean up the diplomatic mess," it is important to bring up the topic for discussion now, even if the administration would prefer that you focus instead on the Iraq mess, incredible as that may seem. How the Iraq Deception Aids an Attack on Iran The country is up in arms over the "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraq "attempting" to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Some criticisms imply that if indeed there had been such an attempt, the attack against Iraq would have been justified. Iran makes its own yellowcake and is processing it into uranium hexafluoride at this very moment. According to the latest reports, the material being processed is enough for 10 nuclear bombs. The other reasons given to attack Iraq apply at least as much or even more so to Iran and will be brought up by the U.S. government after the attack, so we may as well consider them now: - Iraq was falsely accused of possessing WMD; it turned out it didn't have a single ounce. Iran almost certainly still has remnants of chemical weapons (as do many other countries, including the United States). The U.S. accuses Iran of having both chemical and biological weapons. - Iraq was accused of having used chemical weapons in war in the past. Iran has been also. - Iraq was accused of having ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11. The bipartisan 9/11 commission determined that Iraq had no significant ties to al-Qaeda, and no connection to 9/11. Instead, it determined that "senior al-Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives" in 1993, alleged the "persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaeda figures" after 1996, and claimed that "there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers." - Iraq was accused of supporting terrorists intent on harming America. No proof of such allegations has emerged. Iran is accused of sponsoring Hezbollah, labeled a terrorist organization. Iran was indicted by the U.S. attorney general for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing that killed 19 Americans, which according to the 9/11 commission, may have involved al-Qaeda. Furthermore, an American court ruled that Iran was directly involved in the 1982 Beirut bombing that killed 241 U.S. marines. - Both Iraq and Iran have long been declared enemies of Israel. The U.S. and Israel have been warning against the Iranian danger to Israel for many years, claiming it is trying to develop nuclear weapons since at least as far back as 1995. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel; Iraq did not after the Gulf War. Iraq was only accused of giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers; Iran is accused of supplying arms and rockets to Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists. - The U.S. and Britain are accusing Iran of supplying arms and bombs to insurgents in Iraq. - Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a secular regime, more to the liking of America than the Iranian Muslim fundamentalist regime. Iran has denied most of the allegations listed above. However, the accusations are widely reported in the Western press as facts, and most Americans have accepted them as such. Consider the following: if the Bush administration knew that it was misusing and manipulating faulty intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion, as most Americans now believe, it also knew that the truth about nonexistent Iraqi WMD would come out after the fact. Whether the American people interpreted it as incompetence or deliberate deception, the administration's decision to go to war would eventually be subject to widespread criticism on either ground. Why did the administration choose to build up a case for invading Iraq out of thin air, knowing full well it was destined to fall apart in the aftermath? I believe there are two complementary reasons. (1) The faulty arguments to attack Iraq provide an even stronger justification to attack Iran, as explained above. Since the country has already accepted that line of argument, the administration can argue after the attack on Iran that it did not need to go to Congress or the American people to ask for their support again. (2) The real, ultimate goal was always to attack Iran, but the Iraq invasion was a necessary intermediate step. What the Rest of the World Is Doing The United States used diplomacy, in particular UN resolution 1441 of November 2002, which was supported unanimously by the Security Council, as a cover to justify its military action against Iraq, and it is using the same strategy again. Europe is enabling the U.S. strategy by pushing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran to the Security Council. When the process reaches a dead end at the Security Council, or even if it never gets there, the U.S. will argue that the international community, especially Europe, "share[s] our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it." Depending on whether diplomatic action stalls at the Security Council or before that at the IAEA, the U.S. will argue that each entity "has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." Russia and China oppose placing sanctions on Iran, but they are not taking a strong stand against U.S. aggression. Why a Nuclear Attack Against Iran Is Imminent The U.S. and Israel have made it clear that they will not allow Iran to implement a civilian nuclear program that includes the fuel cycle, because it will bring Iran closer to a point where it could develop nuclear weapons if it so decided. Iran claims the right to develop civilian nuclear technology, including the fuel cycle, which is explicitly allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). These are completely irreconcilable positions, and in the absence of compromise they can only be resolved by military action in which the stronger side prevails. The U.S. is not negotiating with Iran either directly or indirectly and is in essence demanding that Iran prove today beyond any doubt that it will not have nuclear weapons in the indefinite future, which is as impossible as it was for Saddam Hussein to prove that he did not have weapons he didn't have. Iran is much stronger militarily than Iraq was, and is potentially a much larger threat to Israel. Iran will continue to grow stronger in the future, and following the Bush logic, it is preferable to preempt than to wait. The Bush statement in the 2002 State of the Union address, "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic." was directed to Iran as much as to Iraq. So was the following: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." Furthermore, the balance of power in the region has been upset by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in an irreversible way. The containment that Saddam Hussein provided to Iran's power in the region no longer exists, and if the U.S. reduces its presence in Iraq without attacking Iran, Iran is likely to establish itself further as a strong regional superpower, expanding its influence over Iraq as well as the broader Middle East. So why hasn't Iran been attacked yet? Only because several elements had to first fall into place, as they now have. The attack on Iran will occur at any time in the coming days or weeks and will include the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. Let us summarize the pieces of the puzzle assembled by this and previous administrations that lead to the upcoming nuking of Iran: - The lumping of nuclear weapons together with other unconventional weapons under the general concept of WMD, starting in earnest in the early '90s; - The "negative security assurance" [.pdf] declaration of the United States, which promises not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, but explicitly excludes from this assurance states that are in noncompliance with the NPT; - The United States' gradual modification of its approach to the use of nuclear weapons, to the point where now they are part of the conventional arsenal. In 2002, when the "Nuclear Posture Review" policy document was leaked and criticized, the Defense Department argued that it was just a "wide-ranging analysis of the requirements of deterrence" and that it "does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning." Such "operational guidance" was recently provided and leaked to the press (possibly to gauge public reaction, which unfortunately has been almost nonexistent) in the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf] document, which describes many specific scenarios in which the U.S. will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, scenarios that apply specifically to the Iran situation. - The scuttling of the NPT Review Conference of 2005, caused mainly by the refusal of the U.S. to include on the agenda issues related to nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances, which are of primary interest to non-nuclear states; - The declaration by the IAEA on Sept. 24, 2005 [.pdf], that Iran is in noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and thus subject to nuclear attack by the U.S.; - The placement of 150,000 U.S. troops within the range of Iranian missiles and conventional forces. Why are nuclear weapons an indispensable part of the enterprise? Because conventional military action against Iran would be very costly and would likely lead to disaster. Iran has dozens of Shahab 3 missiles that can reach Israel and many more short-range missiles that can target U.S. forces in Iraq, potentially with chemical warheads. It also has a 7 million-strong Basiji volunteer militia and local support from the Shi'ite population in southern Iraq, all of which would easily overwhelm the 150,000 U.S. troops and the weak Iraqi army. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, a conventional aerial attack against Iranian installations (like Israel did to Osirak's reactor in 1981) would also have been futile. Iran's facilities are numerous, many are underground, and partial destruction would only have led to a radicalization of Iran's regime and a full-scale drive toward nuclear weapons. However, to justify the breaking of the 60-year-old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, it is necessary for the lives of many Americans to be at stake. Otherwise, the American public would not condone the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. By placing U.S. forces within range of Iranian missiles and conventional forces, a situation has been created in which the American public will support the use of nuclear weapons to save thousands of American lives. This is why the invasion of Iraq was a necessary prelude to the nuclear attack on Iran. Most importantly, the value of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is emphasized in Defense Department policy, and it will undeniably enhance their deterrent effect to demonstrate that the U.S. is ready to use nuclear weapons, lest the world forget after 60 long years of dormancy that nuclear weapons are for real. Why a Nuclear Attack on Iran Is a Bad Idea Now that we have outlined what is very close to happening, let us discuss briefly why everything possible should be done to prevent it. In a worst-case scenario, the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran. Millions of "human wave" Iranian militias will storm into Iraq, and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons, the U.S. will stop them with nuclear weapons, resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. The Middle East will explode, and popular uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and a nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons. In a best-case scenario, the U.S. will destroy all nuclear, chemical, and missile facilities in Iran with conventional and low-yield nuclear weapons in a lightning surprise attack, and Iran will be paralyzed and decide not to retaliate for fear of a vastly more devastating nuclear attack. In the short term, the U.S. will succeed, leaving no Iranian nuclear program, civilian or otherwise. Iran will no longer threaten Israel, a regime change will ensue, and a pro-Western government will emerge. However, even in the best-case scenario, the long-term consequences are dire. The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, they will certainly be used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years, and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed. Let us remember that the destructive power of existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million times that of the Hiroshima bomb, enough to erase Earth's population many times over. Furthermore, despite all the U.S. and Israeli allegations, there is not a shred of real evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The fact that it hid its nuclear program for many years is understandable, given that the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran and first accused it of pursuing nuclear weapons many years ago. Since 2003, all Iranian nuclear activities have been open and accessible to the IAEA, and Iran has signed an additional protocol that allows unannounced inspections of all its facilities. Iran would not be able to develop nuclear weapons under these conditions even if it wanted to. Finally, Iran has offered to enter into partnerships with foreign companies to provide additional assurances that its uranium enrichment is devoted solely to civilian purposes. Recall that uranium enrichment for reactors is at 3-5 percent levels, while weapons require 90 percent levels, which demands a qualitatively different effort. Can a Nuclear Attack Be Averted? The reader will notice that this section is very short. Creative ideas are needed! Because the United States is counting on the "nuclear option" to ensure the success of military action against Iran, it is not seriously pursuing diplomatic alternatives, such as negotiating directly with Iran to reach an agreement on a civilian nuclear program under strict international supervision. It is essential to debate whether the U.S. should use nuclear weapons against Iran before it happens rather than after. In the case of Hiroshima, because the existence of nuclear bombs was classified information, a public discussion on whether nuclear bombs should have been used against Japan to end World War II could not occur. Many physicists who were part of the Manhattan Project in 1945 urged the government not to use the newly developed weapons, but their calls went unheeded. Today, a public debate can occur. The scenarios described in the Pentagon document [.pdf] in which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons include "for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms," against "an adversary intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces," and "to demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons." These are not acceptable scenarios. It is not in the best interests of the United States nor the rest of the world for the U.S. to base its military planning on such policies, because if it does so a situation will inevitably arise in which no alternative will be left, as in the case considered here. There has to be a public discussion in the media, online, and in Congress. Unless there is an extraordinary outcry of opposition against such policies, they are bound to be implemented in the very near future. -------- u.n. 'IAEA report on Iran more positive than before' Monday, November 21, 2005 (IranMania) http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=37930&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi said the recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Iran's nuclear program was more positive than the previous one, according to IRNA. "Under current circumstances, our assumption is that we will face the issue of our nuclear case being reported to the UN Security Council unless the United States exerts specific political pressure on European states," Boroujerdi told reporters. "In five to six points in ElBaradei's report, Iran's measures have been regarded as positive. The negative part of the previous report which made the IAEA ended up in dead-end in following up Iran's case was not included in the new report," he added. In response to a question on the possibility of Iran's nuclear case being sent to the Security Council, he said, "There is no other justification for this but the US political pressure on Iran, IRNA said. Otherwise, the report has not provided any excuse for referral of Iran's case to the Security Council." On Majlis plan to suspend uranium enrichment in Iran, he said, "Based on the plan, if the United States intends to influence Iran's case through political pressure and report it to the UNSC or present a report to the agency on Iran's activities, Iran will terminate all its voluntary measures." The MP said the IAEA resolution during the upcoming meeting of the governing board, slated for November 24, may once more calls for suspension of nuclear work at Isfahan's Uranium Conversion Facility but logically Iran's case should not be reported to the Security Council, IRNA added. He pointed to the positive stance of the Non-Aligned states on Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and said, "Atmosphere is positive for Iran in the next governing board's meeting." Asked about Egypt's stance on Iran's nuclear activities, Boroujerdi added, "Egypt is among member states of the IAEA governing board. They are also under same pressure, IRNA noted. "Egypt also believes that based on Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT signatories should continue peaceful nuclear work freely and within the IAEA framework. "Like Iran, Egypt is against production and use of atomic bomb." -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence Leading edge - USCG juggles assets for homeland security By Katy Glassborow, 21 November 2005 Jane's http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni051121_1_n.shtml Together, the impact of Hurricane Katrina and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 have put homeland security at the top of the US Coast Guard (USCG) agenda. Sector Commanders are now designated as Federal Maritime Security Coordinators for ports, pulling together resources from all other involved parties such as police and customs, and acting as the lead agency in building maritime domain awareness. Operationally, the IMO's International Shipping and Port Facility Security Code -and its implementing law in the US, the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 - empowered the USCG not only inspect foreign-flagged vessels for safety and environmental compliance, but also for security compliance. This increases the information inspectors need to acquire in regard to the 7,000-8,000 foreign-flagged ships that call on US ports each year. This is quite a tall order for a force that has been battling against a fleet of ageing and technologically obsolete aircraft and surface platforms for more than a decade. The Integrated Deepwater System programme of the 1990s, designed to recapitalise assets, was already desperately needed even before the additional homeland security duties were enshrined, as current assets will reach the end of their projected service lives this decade, and the USCG is experiencing system failures at a steadily increasing rate. Early in 2005, the DHS approved a revised Mission Need Statement and implementation plan that aligns the Deepwater Programme with the operational requirements of the USCG in the face of its new role. The revised implementation plan projects a USD24 billion, 25-year sustainment, modernisation and recapitalisation effort. In the meantime, the USCG is working hard to boost its capabilities by capitalising on those of its partners. Captain Glen Wiltshire, Sector Commander for New York, says: "The acronym 'PWCS', for ports, waterways and coastal security, that was created after the terrorist attacks shows our duties extend beyond the sea buoy. We do not have all the assets we need to be everywhere all the time, but we have great partners.” 330 of 3,050 words [End of non-subscriber extract.] -------- torture Report: UK-Trained Iraqi Police Killed Two w/ Electric Drills Monday, November 21st, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/1516252 The Independent of London is reporting British-trained Iraqi police operating in Basra have tortured at least two civilians to death with electric drills. Their bodies were later found with drill holes to their arms, legs and skulls. Ex-Gitmo Detainees Speak At Amnesty Conference Meanwhile in London, Amnesty International opened a three-day conference Saturday on human rights, prevention of torture and detentions. Amnesty said it was the largest gathering of former Guantanamo detainees and their families held yet. Former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg spoke to Amnesty ahead of the conference. "The people who claim to be the upholders and defenders of freedom are debating now whether it is legitimate to use torture," said Begg. "After all of what the world has been through arguing against the fact. And if it does in one way or another become legitimised, either mental torture or physical or psychological, which has been clearly used by several countries, then I think the world will spiral into something that nobody will be able to control." -------- POLITICS -------- investigations CIA Leak Prosecutor to Go to New Grand Jury Monday, November 21st, 2005 Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/1516252 And this update on the CIA leak case... Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday that he plans to present new evidence to another federal grand jury. The announcement came three weeks after an earlier grand jury indicted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Last week investigators questioned Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward for two hours after learning that a senior administration official revealed Valerie Plame's identity to him in mid-June 2003. There has been great speculation over who within the Bush administration might have been Woodward's source. The Times of London claims it is Stephen Hadley who is now Bush's National Security Advisor. At the time Hadley was deputy National Security Advisor under Condoleeza Rice. Newsweek magazine has suggested it might be former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage. -------- propaganda wars U.S. Ignored Warnings About Iraqi Informant Curveball Monday, November 21st, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/1516252 In other Iraq news -- five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service have told the Los Angeles Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that information provided by a top Iraqi informant codenamed Curveball could not be trusted or confirmed. Despite the questions about Curveball's veracity, the Bush administration issued dire warnings about Iraq's biological weapons program based on his claims. President Bush repeatedly said Iraq had mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations in February 2003 that these labs could brew enough weapons-grade microbes "in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people." The Germans were shocked to hear Powell's speech. One official said "We had always told them it was not proven.... It was not hard intelligence." A month after Powell's speech, chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, announced inspectors in Iraq had found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. But Blix's announcement drew little notice at the time and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began two weeks later. Curveball was an Iraqi exile who moved to Germany in 1999. The LA Times reports the CIA corroborated Curveball's story with three sources: Two had ties to Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. All three turned out to be frauds. Curveball claimed his brother was Chalabi's bodyguard. -------- us politics Rep. Murtha Repeats Call For Troop Withdrawal Monday, November 21st, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/1516252 In news from Capitol Hill the debate over the Iraq war has intensified to levels not seen even before Congress voted to approve the invasion. On Sunday Democratic Congressman John Murtha appeared on Meet the Press to repeat his call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. He's the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee and a 37-year Marine veteran. He has long been considered a Democratic hawk. Last week the White House immediately attacked Murtha following his call for troop withdrawal. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said "It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." Rep. Schmidt Calls Murtha "A Coward" on House Floor On Friday Murtha was called a coward on the floor of the House by newly elected Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt. Then on Friday night the Republican leadership moved to silence Murtha's criticism by introducing a bill that was worded in a manner designed to split the Democratic Party The Republican bill proposed "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." The bill was rejected 403 to 3. The only legislators backing the measure were Democrats Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Jose Serrano of New York and Robert Wexler of Florida. McKinney lashed out at the Republicans for distorting Murtha's message. She said "They took his words and contorted them; they took his heartfelt sentiments and spun them. They took his resolution and deformed it: in a cheap effort to silence dissent in the House of Representatives." -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy France Wants to Raise EU Limits on Biofuel Use REUTERS FRANCE: November 21, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33565/newsDate/21-Nov-2005/story.htm PARIS - French Industry Minister Francois Loos wants the European Union to raise limits on the use of biofuels, a cleaner-burning fuel alternative, in petrol and diesel, according to an interview to be published on Monday. As traditional fuel prices have rocketed, France, the biggest agricultural producer in Europe, aims to be the region's leading biofuel maker by 2010, when all fuels should contain seven percent of biofuel. "For my part, I am ready to modify the French limits on diestar (biodiesel) in gas oil. And I will go to Brussels to ask for a modification of the European levels (of biofuels) in petrol," Loos said in the La Tribune newspaper. Biofuels in France are divided between biodiesel largely made from rapeseed which is then blended with diesel and ethanol, a combustible fuel made from beet or cereals which can be blended with conventional fuel. Loos and Agriculture Minister Dominique Bussereau will meet with the biofuel industry on Monday to discuss plans to double production with 1.8 million tonnes of new biofuel capacity in order to reach its 2008 production target. This will add 1.3 million tonnes of biodiesel and 500,000 tonnes of ethanol, which will create savings in oil of some 30,000 tonnes of oil equivalent and cut carbon dioxide emissions by at least 4 million tonnes. -------- OTHER -------- health Birdflu Survivors May Not Be All That Safe - Experts Story by Tan Ee Lyn CHINA:REUTERS November 21, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33559/newsDate/21-Nov-2005/story.htm HONG KONG - Deadly strains of the H5N1 bird flu virus have killed about half of all people known to have been infected and most people assume that survivors should be protected by antibodies and so immune to repeat infections. But experts say that may not always be the case. The virus, which has infected 130 people in Asia and killed 67 of them since late 2003, is changing constantly and repeat infections by new strains could still leave a birdflu survivor in peril, just as people can catch a new form of the flu every year. "Infected people with antibodies (to H5N1) should be protected for years against the same virus. But usually influenza viruses are changing constantly. You may not be protected from viruses with some changes," said Hitoshi Oshitani, a World Health Organisation Adviser on communicable diseases. "This is why we have seasonal outbreaks of influenza every year and people can be infected with influenza every year," he wrote in an e-mail in reply to questions from Reuters. Health experts are warning that the virus, which is spreading in poultry in parts of Asia and which has mostly jumped directly to humans from birds, will mutate into one that is easily passed between people and set off a pandemic, killing millions. Influenza is an RNA virus, which is unsteady when it replicates. This results in frequent variation, or mutation, and finally one form will spread from person to person. Samson Wong, a microbiologist with the University of Hong Kong, said no one knows if a birdflu survivor would be immune to future attacks of the virus. "No one knows if a survivor will survive a repeat attack, because it is a new disease. They should have protective immunity, but like human influenza, H5N1 could mutate, and if the person is infected by a different strain, he may get sick all over again,' Wong told Reuters. "If the person is infected by the same strain, he should have immunity, but nobody knows for how long." How well survivors tackle repeat H5N1 attacks may also depend on how well their systems "remember" the virus strain. Lymphocytes, the blood cells that make antibodies, have memory cells and this function allows them to remember a past encounter with the H5N1 strain, and produce antibodies to neutralise the virus in future encounters, experts say. "If the survivor is infected by the same strain of H5N1, he should produce large amounts of antibodies to fight repeat infections," said William Chui, honorary associate professor at the department of pharmacology at the University of Hong Kong. "But that depends on how long the memory stays ... how long this memory lasts, no one knows. Memory is stored in B-memory cells (in lymphocytes), which is key to whether survivors can withstand later attacks." -------- ACTIVISTS 19,000 Protest At School of the Americas Monday, November 21st, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/1516252 In Georgia, an estimated 19,000 people demonstrated outside Fort Benning calling for the closing of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School of the Americas. It was the largest protest to date for the annual event. 40 arrests were made. Protest organizers said the U.S. military has used the school to train Latin American military officials to torture. The protests are timed to coincide with the anniversary of the November 1989 murders of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador. The weekend demonstration came just weeks after it was revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney was seeking Congressional approval for CIA interrogators to engage in torture. ---- Greenpeace Vows to Disrupt Japanese Whaling REUTERS SOUTH AFRICA: November 21, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33557/newsDate/21-Nov-2005/story.htm CAPE TOWN - Greenpeace activists will put their lives on the line to disrupt this year's Japanese whaling hunt, the group said on Friday. "Greenpeace will get out there and put ourselves between the whale and the harpoon to defend our oceans," Shane Rattenbury, head of the group's Ocean Campaign, told reporters in Cape Town's harbour. The activist group will leave South Africa in two ships within the next few days to search the vast Southern Ocean to confront the whalers and stop the hunt, he said. A six-ship Japanese fleet left for the Antarctic last week and plan to double its target catch, spearing more than 900 minke whales, and 10 fin whales -- an endangered species second in size only to the blue whale. Tokyo maintains that whale meat is an important part of its culinary tradition, but anti-whaling nations and environmental groups condemn as cruel and unnecessary the practice of hunting the giant marine mammals. Rattenbury said uncontrolled commercial whaling over the past century had wiped out 90 percent of the planet's whales, and has brought many species to the brink of extinction. "We are facing a growing wave of ocean extinction, our seas have reached a tipping point with scores of species of fish, birds and mammals edging towards extinction," he said. The planned confrontation is the first phase of a 14-month campaign that will see Greenpeace vessels sail the world to gather research and drum up support for a campaign to declare 40 percent of the world's oceans protected areas. Japan abandoned commercial whaling in 1986 in line with an international moratorium and began what it calls a research programme the following year, but meat still ends up on plates in restaurants. The International Whaling Commission passed a non-binding resolution at a meeting in June that urged Japan to scrap research whaling altogether, while Japan lobbied for commercial whaling to be allowed again. It threatened to withdraw from the commission and form a new regulatory body with other whaling nations such as Norway.