Uranium work to restart ‘in days,’ Plus: The Times gets it wrong on Ledeen

Tom Walker, The Times UK:

IRAN may resume work on its nuclear programme at Esfahan as early as next week, the country’s top nuclear negotiator was quoted as saying yesterday.

Hassan Rohani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, reportedly said it was likely that unspecified nuclear activities related to uranium enrichment would begin again. READ MORE

Quoted by the official Islamic Republic News Agency, Rohani said: “It’s unlikely that uranium enrichment . . . which takes place in Natanz will be resumed, but it’s likely that some activities at Esfahan Uranium Conversion Facility will restart next week.”

His comments came after talks in London with British, French and German officials about the future of Iran’s nuclear programme failed to achieve a breakthrough. Iran was pressed in vain for a permanent end to its enrichment activities.

Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian foreign minister, had said on the eve of the talks that if they failed, “we will have no choice but to restart the uranium enrichment programme”.

However, a senior Foreign Office official said the two sides would reflect on what had been discussed and then continue to negotiate.

The Sunday Times’s disclosure today that Iran has produced three tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas that could be used to enrich uranium for civil nuclear power or an atomic weapon, combined with Rohani’s remarks, caused unease among hawks close to the administration of President George W Bush.

Michael Ledeen, the prominent neo-conservative who has led calls for an attack on Iran, said that he was not surprised to learn about the unannounced production of UF6. “I've always had maximum admiration for the Iranians’ ability to deceive us,” he said.

The US State Department said that it was “interested” in the news of the UF6 while Gary Samore, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and a leading expert on the Iranian nuclear programme, said Tehran still faced technical difficulties in processing the UF6 into fuel or weapons material.

I am disappointed that the Times has not done better research. They described Michael Ledeen as "the prominent neo-conservative who has led calls for an attack on Iran." Ledeen has long been an advocate of regime change in Iran. Perhaps they drew the false conclusion he was referring to militarily forcing a regime change. But he has not led calls for an attack on Iran, but rather advocates supporting of a regime change in Iran using similar methods as were used in Romania, the Ukraine, Lebanon and elsewhere. Here is a classic example of Ledeen's position on Iran:

If we could bring down the Soviet Empire by inspiring and supporting a small percentage of the people, surely the chances of successful revolution in Iran are more likely. ... we don't need armies of fighting American men and women to liberate Tehran; the foot soldiers are Iranians, and they are already on the ground, awaiting good leadership with a clear battle plan. The war against the Iranian terror masters will be political, not military.

The fact that the Times is not more careful in its statement about Ledeen puts its credibility in general in question. Journalists are expected to follow of the nuances of these important debates. Let hope they correct this and are more careful in the future.

A final thought, the media seems to frame the crisis with Iran as a choice between negotiations or military action. But the most recent revolutions in the world have not been neither. They have been popular revolutions and there are signs of similar revolutions brewing around the world. The people of Iran have long argued that with international support they can bring down the regime and replace it with a real democracy. Certainly this is the best of all options. When will the media realize that the world is changing and that fighting or negotiating with tyrants are no longer the only solutions?