Iran

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The Guardian have a story that George Bush will establish a US diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time in 30 years.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

It goes on:

Bush has taken a hard line with Iran throughout the last seven years but, in the dying days of his administration, it is believed he is keen to have a positive legacy that he can point to.

The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he is not against the opening of a US mission, saying Iran will consider favourably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries.

He has his legacy to think about I guess.

In July 1999 the man on this cover of the Economist, Ahmad Batebi, was arrested by Iranian authorities. He was tortured and told he would be killed.

During his interrogation he was blindfolded and beaten with cables until he passed out. His captors rubbed salt into his wounds to wake him up, so they could torture him more. They held his head in a drain full of sewage until he inhaled it. He recalls yearning for a swift death to end the pain. He was played recordings of what he was told was his mother being tortured. His captors wanted him to betray his fellow students, to implicate them in various crimes and to say on television that the blood on that T-shirt was only red paint. He says he refused.

Last month he escaped via Iraq and is now in Washington DC. His blog is here. The Economist spoke to him last week:

Looking at the picture that sparked his ordeal, he says that another man in his place might be angry, but he is not. Mr Batebi is a photographer himself. He says he understands what journalism involves. Had we not published the picture, he says, another paper might have. Looking at the same picture, his lawyer, interpreter and friend Lily Mazahery says she is close to tears: in it, the young Mr Batebi’s pale arms are as yet unscarred by torture.

The protests Mr Batebi took part in nine years ago frightened Iran’s rulers. The students were angry about censorship, the persecution of intellectuals and the thugs who beat up any student overheard disparaging the regime. Mr Batebi thinks Iran could well turn solidly democratic some day. In neighbouring states, religious extremism is popular. In Iran, he says, the government is religiously extreme, but the people are not.

He is cagey about how exactly he escaped. But he says he used a cellphone camera to record virtually every step of his journey, and will soon go public with the pictures and his commentary. Meanwhile, he seems to be enjoying America. He praises the way “people have the opportunity to become who they want to be”. Shortly after he arrived, he posted a picture of himself in front of the Capitol on his Farsi-language blog, with the caption: “Your hands will never touch me again.”

I look forward to an account of his life and his escape.

Back to Iran again. Geoffrey Kemp writing in the National Interest is hoping that for the sake of America’s interest, Israel is not planning to strike Iran.

Could or would Israel try to drag the United States into such a confrontation? The answer is no, unless this is what the Bush administration wants to happen. The indications are that while some White House advisors may still contemplate such an action, it would be far more difficult to convince the secretaries of defense and state that another Middle Eastern war would serve American interests.

As was brought up yesterday, if Israel were considering a strike, they could wait until the near end of the Bush lame duck administration, and the beginning of an Obama/McCain one, thus avoiding the issue Kemp raises above.

Mr Hersh is talking about Iran again. Kevin Drum points to a good Q&A by Laura Rozen over at Mother Jones.

Danny Postel points to this interesting piece in the Economist. It does not make for pleasant reading. After Israel’s recent practice run for bombing Iran, the newspaper concludes that they may not be bluffing.

It may well be true that Mr Bush is disinclined to bomb Iran now that he is a lame duck, but the possible advent of a President Obama might just make Israel more inclined to do so itself. As the hawkish John Bolton, a former Bush administration official, said this week, Israel may think the best time to attack would be during America’s presidential transition—too late to be accused of influencing the election and before needing a new president’s green light.

This is the best ‘Word’ segment I have ever seen. Colbert discusses the drum beat for war with Iran. Gotta love the Star Wars clip - perfect. Money quote:

Everyone knows that Cheney’s fondest pipe dream is driving a bulldozer into the New York Times while drinking crude oil out of Keith Olbermann’s skull.

Love it.

It looks like deadlock. We will have to wait and see.

A UK diplomat said the EU3, the foreign ministers of the UK, Germany and France - had not heard anything new.

The Iranian official, Javad Vaeedi, cast the talks in a positive light and said he hoped the talks would continue.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, is meeting in Vienna on Thursday and could refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

Diplomats from EU3 plus the US, Russia and China are meeting for dinner in London on Monday evening to try to agree a common stance ahead of the Vienna talks.

I thought this quote rather interesting:

IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei told Newsweek magazine that after three years of intensive work, he is still not able to conclude that Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed purely at energy creation rather than the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

“If they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponisation programme along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon,” he said.

With the US military stretched, how can a military option be considered. Special forces/air strikes, combined with a trade embargo, seems like the only options. And when Bush says he is seeking a non-military solution, is it the same as when he said the same during the inspections in Iraq in early 2003?

The question is, how will the new Israeli Prime Minister react to Iran’s behaviour - whoever he may be.

Iran seems determined. Even with the recent agreements with North Korea, Iran seems set on a collision course with the US and Britain. Where sanctions could lead is anyone’s guess. Referring Iran to the Security Council is the first step into dangerous territory.

Iran may stop allowing snap inspections of its nuclear facilities if it is referred to the UN Security Council, says the country’s top negotiator.

Ali Larijani said Tehran would also consider pulling out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) if the “language of force” continues.

The UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, is discussing Tehran’s activities, which Iran insists are for peaceful purposes.

The US and the EU are calling for Iran to be referred to the Security Council.

And Russia and China have given some support to Iran:

Moscow and Beijing may block the plan, with Russia saying the current situation was “not irreversible”.

It was interesting to see an Iranian representative on the news saying that all the Europeans offered them were ‘lollipops’. To be honest I think you could offer Iran the world, but in the end they would still go ahead with their nuclear project, either in the open or at some level of secrecy. This turn of events could still lead to a showdown at the UN.

Seems like Iran is further from nuclear weapons than we were led to believe, but then who knows?

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, has a lengthy piece in Policy Review on Iran. He argues that were Iran to attain Nuclear weapons capability there would be three major repurcussions:

Even more nuclear proliferation. Iran’s continued insistence that it acquired its nuclear capabilities legally under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (npt) would, if unchallenged, encourage its neighbors (including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Algeria) to develop nuclear options of their own and overtly declare possession or import weapons from elsewhere. Such announcements and efforts would likely undermine nuclear nonproliferation restraints internationally and strain American relations with most of its friends in the Middle East.

Dramatically higher oil prices. A nuclear-ready Iran could be emboldened to manipulate oil prices upward, either by threatening the freedom of the seas (by mining oil transit points as it did in the 1980s or by seeking to close the Straits of Hormuz) or by using terrorist proxies to threaten the destruction of Saudi and other Gulf state oil facilities and pipelines.

Increased terrorism geared to diminish U.S. influence. With a nuclear weapons option acting as a deterrent to U.S. and allied action against it, Iran would likely lend greater support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and the U.S.

He believes the two options currently proving popular, bribery or bombing, could be disastrous.

On bombing:

Targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities risks leaving other covert facilities and Iran’s cadre of nuclear technicians untouched. More important, any overt military attack would give Tehran a casus belli either to withdraw from the npt or to rally Islamic Jihadists to wage war against the U.S. and its allies more directly. Whatever might be gained by technically delaying the completion of Iran’s bomb option, then, would have to be weighed against what might be lost in Washington’s long-term effort to encourage more moderate Islamic rule in Iran and the Middle East, to synchronize allied policies against nuclear proliferation, and to deflate Iran’s rhetorical demonstrations against U.S. and allied hostility. Moreover, bluffing an attack against Iran — sometimes urged as a way around these difficulties — would only aggravate matters: The bluff would inevitably be exposed and further embolden Iran and weaken U.S. and allied credibility.

On bribing:

As for negotiating directly with Tehran to limit its declared nuclear program — an approach preferred by most of America’s European allies — this too seems self-defeating. First, any deal the Iranian regime would agree to would validate the claim that the npt legally allows its members to acquire all the capabilities Iran possesses. In other words, working supposedly within the terms of the npt, any state can get as far along as Tehran is now. Second, it would foster the view internationally that the only risk in violating required npt inspections would be getting caught at it — and that the consequence of getting caught would amount to being bribed to limit only those activities the inspectors managed to discover.

He then goes on to suggest a broad range of diplomatic alternatives - all of which are worth reading.

Normally when I find interesting articles I bookmark them in Firefox for addition to my blog later. Last Saturday I added an article from the IHT titled “Blair backs possible UN action on Iran”. The said article appears to have disappeared. It is now titled “Iran court frees a top dissident“. A quick search for the original title on Google led me back to the same changed piece - but also to some other AP releases on the Guardian website.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that Iran should be referred to the U.N. Security Council if it breaches its nuclear obligations, while Tehran vowed to resume some activities that can be part of the process of making nuclear weapons.

I can’t figure out why the frontpage story from the IHT was shifted.

Over at the UN, Iran is not too happy with the US - what’s new.

Iran has escalated its war of words with the US over Tehran’s nuclear programme, calling Washington’s arsenal a major threat to global peace. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi demanded assurances that the US would not launch a nuclear strike on Iran. And he rejected a call from President George Bush for non-nuclear nations to be denied access to nuclear technology. The US fears Iran is trying to build nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian use only. Mr Kharrazi told a UN conference it was unacceptable for an “exclusive club” of nations to deny nuclear technology to others “under the pretext of non-proliferation”.

And here is how the numbers stack up:

Just in case anyone missed this story, it didn’t figure that highly in the news at the time.

Ukrainian arms dealers smuggled 18 nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China in 1999-2001, Ukraine’s prosecutor-general has said. The Soviet-era Kh-55 missiles - also known as X-55s - have a maximum range of 2,500km (1,550 miles). They are launched by long-range bombers. Official Ukrainian state bodies were not involved in the sales, the prosecutor-general’s office said. It added that the missiles were not exported with nuclear warheads.

That would put Tel Aviv well in the range of Tehran.

Iranian (living in Toronto) blogger Hossein Derakhshan reports that Iranian presidential candidate Mostafa Moeen is blogging. The comments on Hossein’s blog don’t seem all that encouraging though.

Also in Foreign Affairs, Kenneth Pollack, Director of Research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and Ray Takeyh, a Senior Fellow in Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations write about Iran. It’s quite a long piece, but here’s some of the introduction to get you hooked:

The hard part, of course, is making sure that Tehran never gets to that point. It appears to have made considerable progress in many aspects of its nuclear program, thanks to extensive assistance from Chinese, Germans, Pakistanis, Russians, and perhaps North Koreans. Iran’s clerical regime has also shown itself willing to endure considerable sacrifices to achieve its most important objectives.

Yet there is reason to believe that Tehran’s course can still be changed, if Washington takes advantage of the regime’s vulnerabilities. Although Iran’s hard-line leadership has maintained a remarkable unity of purpose in the face of reformist challengers, it is badly fragmented over key foreign policy issues, including the importance of nuclear weapons. At one end of the spectrum are the hardest of the hard-liners, who disparage economic and diplomatic considerations and put Iran’s security concerns ahead of all others. At the opposite end are pragmatists, who believe that fixing Iran’s failing economy must trump all else if the clerical regime is to retain power over the long term. In between these camps waver many of Iran’s most important power brokers, who would prefer not to have to choose between bombs and butter.

This split provides an opportunity for the United States, and its allies in Europe and Asia, to forge a new strategy to derail Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons. The West should use its economic clout to strengthen the hand of Iranian pragmatists, who could then argue for slowing, limiting, or shelving Tehran’s nuclear program in return for the trade, aid, and investment that Iran badly needs. Only if the mullahs recognize that they have a stark choice–they can have nuclear weapons or a healthy economy, but not both–might they give up their nuclear dreams. With concern over Iran’s nuclear aspirations growing, the United States and its allies now have a chance to present Iran with just such an ultimatum.

It looks like US intelligence on Iran is not up to scratch:

A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran’s weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel’s work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran’s efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

Michael Ledeen’s recent article in National Review came up in conversation with some people on Friday night. I found the article through a Roger Simon’s blog, who believes this is something the blogosphere should get behind. Ledeen’s suggestion:

The great political battlefield in the Middle East is, as it has been all along, Iran, the mother of modern terrorism, the creator of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and the prime mover of Hamas. When the murderous mullahs fall in Tehran, the terror network will splinter into its component parts, and the jihadist doctrine will be exposed as the embodiment of failed lies and misguided messianism.

The instrument of their destruction is democratic revolution, not war, and the first salvo in the political battle of Iran is national referendum. Let the Iranian people express their desires in the simplest way possible: “Do you want an Islamic republic?” Send Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel to supervise the vote. Let the contending parties compete openly and freely, let newspapers publish, let radios and televisions broadcast, fully supported by the free nations. If the mullahs accept this gauntlet, I have every confidence that Iran will be on the path to freedom within months. If, fearing a massive rejection from their own people, the tyrants of Tehran reject a free referendum and reassert their repression, then the free nations will know it is time to deploy the full panoply of pressure to enable the Iranians to gain their freedom.

I just can’t see the mullahs accepting that gauntlet. I think they would rather silence and imprison some bloggers.

Things are getting very serious with Iran, sooner than I expected. It looks like the Iranians may be throwing down the gauntlet to Bush and Sharon. I do like the double speak from Khatami:

“We give our guarantee that we will not produce nuclear weapons because we’re against them and do not believe they are a source of power,” Mr Khatami told foreign ambassadors in Tehran.

Not a source of power? Well that depends on the kind of power you are talking about Mr. Khatami.

Perhaps the diplomatic tool that Rice is talking are the same ones used before the invasion of Iraq. On the question of an attack:”The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time.”

Rumours of US special forces in Iran may well be true - and rumour also has it that SAS forces may be deployed to the region soon. Iran is threading a very fine line, and on the back of Bush’s STOU speech, is top of the hitlist. The tacit encouragement of pro-democracy sections within Iranian society by Bush could be hinting at something greater - a want by the administration to see UN sanctions imposed, once European negotiations fail. Sanctions could well encourage an armed uprising, exactly what the US wants, or it may not. If Iran continues to pursue an arms program then either the US or Israel will lose patience within 2005, and air strikes at the very least could result.

Am I the only one that thinks that maybe, just maybe, European countries will be portrayed as the bad guys once negotiations fail, or that they may be sabotaged by the US because of an impatient need for military action?

Steve Clemons mentions a piece about the probing of Iran’s missile defences.

The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq and are part of Bush administration attempts collect badly needed intelligence on Iran’s possible nuclear weapons development sites, these sources said, speaking on condition of strict anonymity.

“These Iranian air defense positions are not just being observed, they’re being ‘templated,’” an administration official said, explaining that the flights are part of a U.S. effort to develop “an electronic order of battle for Iran” in case of actual conflict.

In the event of an actual clash, Iran’s air defense radars would be targeted for destruction by air-fired U.S. anti-radiation or ARM missiles, he said.

It seems pretty likely that this would be happening on an ongoing basis. Satellite technology will only go so far in tracking down SA-7 or SA-9 missile systems, especically mobile or well hidden ones. But once one is turned active it will immediately be known.

In fact missiles like the HARM missile mentioned depend on the radar being active in order to find their target. And other missiles have been developed that are even better. European weapons companies developed a missile that would fire at an active radar system, and the enemy, realising that a missile may be on its way, would turn off their radar systems. The missile would react by climbing up to a high altitude, deploying a parachute, and wait for the radar system to come back on - then it would eject the parachute and kill the target.

It looks like Israel is getting pretty pissed off.

“This problem should be of concern to the whole world and not just Israel.”

Mr Peres, widely regarded as the father of Israel’s secretive nuclear deterrent, dampened suggestions that Israel was planning pre-emptive strikes against Iran, as hinted by Mr Cheney.

“The party that will decide is the United States,” Mr Peres said.

“If we go it alone, we will remain alone. Everyone knows our potential but we also have to know our limits.

“As long as there is a possibility that the world will organise to fight against Iran’s nuclear option, let the world organise.”

Anyone got odds on Israel striking Iran in 2005?

Word has it that the Europeans and Americans are falling out again, this time over Iran.

Despite a renewed American effort to repair relations with Europe, a disagreement between the Bush administration and European leaders over how best to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program has deepened in recent weeks, diplomats on both sides say.

The diplomats said the disagreement focused on what Europeans maintained was the crucial next step in their drive to persuade Iran to move beyond its recently agreed upon voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment activities to the point of abandoning them outright.

The US are taking a hardline:

“The Europeans are barking up the wrong tree if they think the U.S. can bring the Iranians to the table to get an agreement on this,” said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy and an Iran specialist.

“What is needed,” he said, “is for the entire international community - the Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians and the United States - to tell the Iranians to make a deal on this or face the consequences. Right now, what the Iranians say they want from the United States goes far beyond what the administration would be willing to offer.”

While Europeans:

European diplomats, responding to these criticisms, said that while their deal with Iran was flawed, it represented the best hope for reaching an accord that would be accepted by the rest of the world, particularly Russia and China, two players with economic ties to Iran.

To get American involvement in the next phase of negotiations, European envoys said they told Iran that if it failed to comply with its agreement, they would join with the United States in referring the Iranian issue to the UN Security Council for possible further actions, including economic sanctions.

Iran air strikes in 2005 anyone?

James Fallows in the Atlantic asks the question posed on here not so long ago - will Iran be next in line? A subscription is required for this lengthy piece…

Events in Iran will come to the fore this week, but already some big news from the country. The IAEA will meet tomorrow to discuss the situation in Iran. It is reported that Iran has announced it plans to start processing 37 tons of uranium yellowcake, Western intelligence officials have estimated that amount of the processed uranium could build five nuclear bombs.

Meanwhile in an apparent show of force, to ward off any possible invasion by US forces, hundreds of thousands of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards began military maneuvers Sunday near the border with Iraq, with a top commander saying the exercise was designed to reinforce Iran’s resolve to defend itself against “big powers.”

We shall have to see what course of action the US take through the UN.

Just came across this interview from July, with the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. He makes some curious points.

Well Israel, India and Pakistan are not signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty. We want and very powerfully committed to a nuclear free Middle East but that has to happen in order. We now have a nuclear free Mahgreb with the decision by the leader of Libya to abandon their nuclear weapons’ programme. We also have a nuclear free Iraq. Iran and, and I have made this point on a number of occasions to President Khatami of Iran also needs to abandon its aggressive stance towards Israel. The fact that for example on national day parades they have three missiles with the legend written in English on the side death to Israel. Now this aggressive stance to Israel is bound to mean that Israel is going to take or seek to take steps to protect itself from annihilation.

And:

Well no one’s threatening Iran’s territorial integrity, no one is saying that Iran should not exist. Israel’s territorial integrity I’m afraid is threatened. I don’t happen to approve of a lot of the actions which the government of Israel takes and I make that very clear but I also say that if you want a nuclear free Middle East then you have to ensure that first of all it is the Arab and Islamic countries which remove their threat to Israel and then we can put a great deal more pressure on Israel to abandon its undoubted nuclear weapons’ programme which has been there whether people like it or not for defensive purposes. But I also just make this point because Iran is in rather paradoxical position. On the one hand as you say it may feel threatened by the presence of American, United Kingdom and other coalition troops on both its eastern and its western borders in Afghanistan and in Iraq but the paradox of our liberation of Afghanistan and our liberation of Iraq from Saddam is actually to make the Iranian position much stronger. Before they were threatened by Iraq and to a degree by the instability in Afghanistan.

But perhaps most curiously:

No one has any intention of launching military action against Iran. Iran has said itself that it does not want nuclear weapons nor in terms of regional stability does it have any reasons to acquire them or build up a programme for them.

The fact that Iran is now bordered with two countries recently invaded by Western powers is an interesting one. I reckon we might see an effort by the US to see the regime in Iran fall, without the use of US forces to any large degree - they are pretty stretched as it is. But the use of Rumsfeld’s much loved light and quick special forces would also be a distinct possibility to halt the construction of Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran has popped up now and then on this blog over the last number of weeks. I had indicated that the situation looks set to worsen, and if one were to read between the lines, it seems that in the run up the US elections, Iran will figure prominently. It looks like it might turn into a showdown.

This report from Fox news indicates how the story might develop. Senior US figures like Rumsfeld are hinting at something down the line, it is something to watch for. The Fox news report indicates:

President Bush said Monday the United States was exploring whether Iran had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We’re digging into the facts to see if there was one,” Bush said in an Oval Office photo opportunity. “We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved … I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all, it’s a totalitarian society where people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it had been known that there were senior Al Qaeda members in Iran “for some time” and that Iran had been helping Lebanese Hezbollah in moving terrorists down through Syria into Lebanon, then down into Israel.

“So we know that Iran has been on the terrorist list,” Rumsfeld said. “We know that Iran has been notably unhelpful along the border of both Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Some experts wonder whether Tehran will be the next U.S. target in the War on Terror. Loftus said one option the United States could utilize to put pressure on Iran to stop its supposed dirty deeds — such as allegedly trying to make nuclear weapons — would be to establish a naval blockade.

American and British officials may ask the United Nations for action against Iran, Loftus added. Meetings are planned for September and November on the topic.

“My suspicion is, in September we’ll really have evidence that Iran is lying through their teeth,” Loftus said. “We’ll put in a naval blockade and without oil exports, in three weeks the economy of Iran will collapse and it will either be neutered or there will be a regime change from within.”

“We’re not going to invade Iran but [are] probably going to blockade it with the full backing of the United Nations,” he continued. “That’s what is in store for the fall.”

FOX News foreign affairs analyst Alireza Jafarzadeh noted that besides the Sept. 11 report detailing the known Iran-Al Qaeda ties, Iraqi officials have said Iran is the main source of foreign fighters behind the insurgency in Iraq.

“I think it all boils down to what policy the U.S. wants to pursue to contain the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons and the bigger problems Iran is posing,” Jafarzadeh said. “They [U.S.] should pursue a zero-tolerance policy.”

This is amazing stuff, its very similar PR stuff to what happened in the lead up the Iraq war.

A naval blockade of Iran would certainly heighten tensions among the Shia community. Added to this are reports by American intelligence officials who believe that Iran has been supplying Shia rebels in Iraq with advanced weaponry, to aid the destruction of heavy armour, or even helicopters.

Further media reports dwell on the situation further, including this Reuters report:

The United States is determined to stop Iran getting atomic weapons, and has signalled Washington will not rule out an attack if peaceful diplomacy failed to achieve this.

President George W. Bush’s top official on nuclear on-proliferation, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, was asked during a brief visit to Israel if the United States could consider such an attack.

“President Bush is determined to try and find a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons,” he said. “But we are determined that they are not going to achieve a nuclear weapons capability.”

It continues:

The United States wants Iran brought before the U.N. Security Council to face possible sanctions, but Bolton said Washington did not see such measures as automatic.

“The most important reason to take Iran to the Security Council is to heighten political pressure,” he said.

“It is by no means inevitable that the Security Council has to impose economic sanctions or take other steps, that’s why this really lies in Iran’s hands.”

Iran on Sunday rejected European demands it abandon sensitive nuclear activities but reiterated its readiness to provide assurances that its atomic ambitions are entirely peaceful.