Iran allows U.N. inspectors into military complex

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran confirmed on Sunday it had allowed U.N. nuclear inspectors to visit a military complex as part of its efforts to counter U.S. accusations that it is secretly developing nuclear arms.

The United States believes Iran may have experimented with high explosives appropriate for atomic weapons at Parchin, 30 km (19 miles) southeast of Tehran.

Iran says it has no interest in such arms, only in civilian nuclear technology to generate electricity.

"We opened the doors of Parchin again to the inspectors. The site had been visited in the past," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a weekly news conference.

Asefi denied Iran was conducting any nuclear weapons research there or anywhere else in Iran.

"Our nuclear activities are only for peaceful purposes. Our activities are based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations," he said.

The IAEA's board of governors passed a tough resolution in September which brought Tehran to the brink of referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"Since the resolution was passed, we said that Iran was ready to implement some parts of it," Asefi said.

As well as urging Iran to give better access and cooperation to U.N. inspectors, the IAEA's September resolution also called on Tehran to halt uranium processing work which it resumed at its Isfahan facility in August.

But Iran has refused to mothball the Isfahan plant and last week informed the IAEA of plans to start processing a fresh batch of uranium at the plant.

HOPE TO AVOID REFERRAL

Analysts said Iran's improved cooperation with the U.N. inspectors, noted by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei last week, was designed to undermine U.S. and EU efforts to send its case to the Security Council at an IAEA board meeting later this month.

"They are doing everything to avoid referral to the council. Iran is not strong enough to withstand sanctions," said Hamid Pirzadeh, a political science professor at Tehran University.

Asefi also confirmed that Iran was in talks with Russia about the possibility of setting up joint nuclear fuel processing facilities.

Russian officials and Western diplomats who follow Iran's nuclear case closely have said allowing Iran to participate in Russian nuclear facilities, while halting nuclear fuel work at home, could be a face-saving measure to allow Iran and the EU to return to nuclear talks that broke down in August.

But Asefi hinted that Iran wanted the joint facilities to be located in Iran, something that is unlikely to be acceptable to Washington and the EU.

"We are open to talks about any plan and we are discussing with Russia where it should take place but we have told them that we will never abandon our right to the nuclear fuel cycle."

Iran's state radio reported on Saturday that the government had approved a bill that would allow foreign participation in Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September said Iran was prepared to allow other countries to participate in its nuclear programme as a guarantee that it would not develop nuclear weapons.

But Western diplomats say such a proposal does not address concerns that Iran could develop the know-how to make nuclear bombs under the cover of a civilian programme.

European Union foreign ministers will review the bloc's policy of engagement with Iran on Monday following Tehran's decision to resume its nuclear programme and Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel should "be wiped of the map".

---

Source of Iraq-Qaeda link suspected liar - report

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody was identified as a probable liar months before the Bush administration began using his claims as the basis of its contention that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

Citing newly declassified portions of a Defence Intelligence Agency document from February 2002 made available to the Times by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin of the Armed Services Committee, the paper reported it was likely that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was intentionally misleading debriefers about Iraqi support for al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons.

"It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers," the Times quoted the report as saying. "Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of U.S. intelligence agencies' doubts about Libi's credibility, the Times said. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration officials cited his input as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training al Qaeda members in explosives and illicit weapons use, the Times said. The officials did not mention Libi by name at the time.

But Bush, in a speech in October 2002, said, "We've learnt that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases."

Levin said the evidence of early doubts about Libi illustrated what he called the administration's misuse of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the Times said.

As an official intelligence report the document would have circulated widely and would have been available to the CIA, the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies, the Times said. But it was unclear whether it was provided to the Senate panel.

A Bush administration official declined to comment to the newspaper on the report on Libi, who was captured in Pakistan late in 2001 and recanted his claims in January of last year. At the time he was the most senior al Qaeda member in U.S. custody, and is likely being held at Guantanamo Bay, the Times said.

Levin also noted a portion of the D.I.A. report that expressed skepticism about the idea of close collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda, an idea never substantiated by U.S. intelligence but which was a pillar of the Bush administration's prewar claims, the Times reported.

How far along radical road can Iran's president go?

By Paul Hughes

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears determined to pursue a radical agenda -- but analysts ask whether he will be allowed to stay on a path that risks paralysis of the state and confrontation with the West.

"The pressure is growing inside the system to contain him and to pass these four years as quickly as possible without too much damage," said Iranian political analyst Mahmoud Alinejad.

But Ahmadinejad, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who served behind enemy lines in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, appears in no mood to be contained after three months of the four-year term.

Last week he sparked international condemnation by calling for Israel's destruction, further isolating Iran at a time when the U.N.'s atomic watchdog is considering sending Iran's nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

This week his Foreign Ministry announced it was recalling almost half of its ambassadors and senior diplomats, more than 40 in total, many of whom are perceived as moderates who favoured better ties with the West.

On Wednesday he angered parliament by nominating a little-known figure with no oil background to run the oil ministry of OPEC's No. 2 producer. His previous choice, a close ally, was vetoed by lawmakers in August for lacking experience.

Such actions, which have provoked sharp criticism at home and abroad, are no more than the fulfilment of Ahmadinejad's campaign pledges, analysts said.

"The haste is surprising, with his broomstick approach, but not the policy itself," said Anoush Ehteshami, director for the Centre of Middle East and Islamic Studies at Durham University.

"He promised sweeping changes and he's bringing them in."

CLEAN BREAK

The son of a blacksmith whose humble image scores well with Iran's mass of devout poor, Ahmadinejad wants a clean break with the relative moderation of domestic and foreign policy under predecessors Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami.

"He feels the ideology of the (1979 Islamic) revolution was lost and betrayed and he wants to break with this 16-year trend towards moderation," said Alinejad.

His determination to purge the diplomatic corps and make a trusted ally head of the Oil Ministry is firm because "he feels very strongly the time has come to clear the Rafsanjani/Khatami presence from key ministries," said Ehteshami.

But, asked another senior political analyst in Tehran, "how is he going to replace the accumulated years of experience which these officials have in such a short time?"

Parliament, added the analyst, who declined to be named, was almost certain to veto Oil Ministry nominee Sadeq Mahsouli, throwing oil policy into further limbo.

"It's not just reformists who are criticising him, he's rapidly losing friends," he said.

In making his appointments Ahmadinejad has relied more on personal trust than qualifications, lawmakers complain.

The cabinet is peppered with fellow former Revolutionary Guards and he has brought in members of Tehran City Council, where he was mayor before his election win, as senior advisers.

Rumours abound of the influence of his religious mentor Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a hardliner who advocates isolation from the West. Aides have denied the president takes his orders from the cleric.

Ahmadinejad's appointments of experienced figures to economic posts have been greeted with relief among investors, but his own pronouncements on the economy, such as suggesting interest rates should be lowered by decree irrespective of soaring inflation, have caused consternation.

CAPITAL FLIGHT

Since June the Tehran Stock Exchange has shed 25 percent of its value and capital flight has mushroomed.

Diplomatic spats have multiplied, with informal trade bans placed on British and South Korean goods and barbs traded with traditional ally Italy.

"It's chaotic. The stock market has crashed, the budget deficit has ballooned and international pressure is building," said the senior political analyst in Tehran.

While Ahmadinejad's political inexperience may partly be to blame, his apparent unwillingness to heed counsel urging moderation suggests an inner determination, analysts said.

"His coming to power was quite independent of traditional power centres so he feels independent," said Alinejad. "He's not concerned about international reaction, protocol and so on."

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wields ultimate power in Iran, has so far urged those criticising Ahmadinejad to give the government more time.

But his move to grant wide-ranging supervisory powers to the unelected Expediency Council, an advisory panel headed by Rafsanjani, was widely interpreted as an attempt to clip the young president's wings.

Most think pressure on Ahmadinejad will force him to compromise and moderate, unless external pressure forces the political system to rally around him.

"I think he will run into the sand," said Ehteshami. "He will have to compromise, but the prospect of conflict is always a way out, rallying support by fanning crisis with the outside world."

(Additional reporting by Alistair Lyon)

---
source: Reuters

Harry Reid in Senate, November 1, 2005

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby,
the Vice President's Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President
Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in
135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this
Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national
security and are morally repugnant.

The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most
significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress.
The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about:
how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in
order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared
to challenge its actions.

As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this
Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the
Administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane
Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this
Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this
Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these
issues.

Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr.
President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist
attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized
these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the
Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and
retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for
attacking Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and
manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration
statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties
with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and
repeatedly manipulated the facts.

The American people were warned time and again by the President, the
Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam's
nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq "has
reconstituted its nuclear weapons." Playing upon the fears of
Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the
specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with
nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But
more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were
telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's
nuclear capabilities were false.
The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam's links to Al
Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, "We know he's
out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a
longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the
Al Qaeda organization."

The Administration's assertions on this score have been totally
discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these
assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did
not agree with these claims.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to
the Administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this
protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the
Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations
to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families
by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it
even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic
questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress
to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq.
We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with
respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and
corruption that permeates this Administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has
consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our
national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the
Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what
happened and why.

There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the
Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time
and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and
undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand
troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end.
When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war
would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to
an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged
conclusions about Saddam's WMD capabilities, the Administration
pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head
Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration's
claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted
to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no
attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration
launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit
him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA
agent.

Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge
its misstatements, what has been the response of this
Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with
their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration
at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to
make large sacrifices in Iraq.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it
is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90
Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone - the
fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been
wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices
have been and continue to be made.

The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and
accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate
Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President
asking four basic questions about the Administration's Iraq policy
and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the
American people deserve better.

They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how
the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that
need to be answered include:

o How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against
Iraq? o Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did
they ignore? o How did senior Administration officials manipulate or
manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American
people? o What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a
group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and
taking down its critics? o How did the Administration coordinate its
efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the
Administration's assertions? o Why has the Administration failed to
provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their
misconduct and misstatements?

Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in
providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of
the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of
these questions more than 1 and ? years ago, he has chosen not to keep
this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment
earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics
ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I
suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that
fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history
is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame
away from the Administration.

We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this
body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete
investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the
committee's annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and
the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this
Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people
ahead of their own political interests

Syria's future in doubt

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - By tightening the diplomatic noose around Syria's leadership, the United States is aiming to ensure a weakened, compliant government in Damascus without the use of military force.

The Bush administration, tempered by the Iraq experience, appears to be approaching the conflict over the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri with more caution.

It is striving for a "win-win situation" in which a "weak and frightened Bashar al-Assad (stays in power but) is more cooperative," said Jon Alterman, head of Middle East programs at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

But some experts worry the growing international pressure could cause events in Syria to spin out of control.

The latest salvo came on Monday in a tough resolution sponsored by the United States, France and Britain and approved on a unanimous 15-0 vote by the U.N. Security Council.

It ordered Syria to cooperate fully with an investigation into Hariri's February 15 assassination or face unspecified further action, an implicit reference to economic sanctions.

The chief U.N. investigator, German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, already has named Syrian officials as suspects in the assassination in the plot to kill Hariri and 22 others.

He found that the killing was organised by Syrian security officials and their Lebanese allies and that Syria's government had interfered with efforts to complete the evidence-gathering.

IRAQ'S SHADOW

Washington accuses Damascus of stoking insurgents who fuel the conflict in nearby Iraq, of undermining the Mideast peace process and of funding "terrorist" acts in addition to the killing Hariri.

Iraq's shadow hovered over Monday's deliberations at U.N. headquarters in New York, prompting questions about whether the United States might eventually use military action to enforce the Syria resolution, which was approved under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, meaning it is militarily enforceable.

"No one's talking about anything like that," insisted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to reporters.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressed that the resolution called for further Security Council deliberation and approval if coercive measures are to be imposed against Syria. "That is what we intend to live by," she said.

Even the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, an administration hardliner, was measured in discussing possible future actions against Damascus. "I think the Syrians should read this (resolution) as a statement by the council that we are determined that they cooperate," he said.

While there is broad agreement about keeping the pressure on Syria to bring Hariri's killers to justice, some analysts acknowledge that the situation in Syria could unravel into chaos or coup.

A U.S. official told Reuters the U.S. view is that the international pressure tactics "needn't lead to regime change in Syria" if Assad and other Syrian officials make the right decisions on cooperating with the U.N. probe.

A European diplomat said Washington and its allies have little good intelligence about political happenings in Damascus.

And a congressional expert on Mideast issues expressed concern the administration has "not thought through what the likely (Syria) scenario is."

"What I keep hearing from everyone ... is that the regime is weakening and the fear factor (among Syrians) is diminishing," he said, but he wondered whether opposition to Assad's rule might be "reaching a critical mass?"

Much depends on Mehlis' probe and whether he implicates Assad himself in Hariri's assassination, officials said.

"If the international community believes Assad and his circle are guilty of killing Hariri, it's very difficult to see how they can be left in power," said the congressional aide, who is restricted from speaking on the record.

But Alterman said it is unclear who might succeed Assad. Neither the military nor pro-democracy activists have the capacity to take over, he said.