WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | The US-related Saudi predicament.

Yoram Ettinger

Israel is not alone! | JPost | Israel News.

We are not naive. We have ample experience of dealing with the Iranian regime and go into this with our eyes open.

When President Obama was here earlier in the year, he said, “Atem lo levad” – “Israel is not alone.” Today I want to underline this message, particularly in the context of the question that now dominates discussion of Israel’s security – the question of Iran’s nuclear program.

I want to address two aspects of the nuclear question in particular.

The first is reassurance.

To say as clearly as I can that when it comes down to the question of how to deal with the program, we are not going to do a “bad deal.” Nor will we stand by as the Iranians continue to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons.

The second is opportunity. To emphasize that despite all the risks, we have a small window of opportunity to test whether there can be a negotiated solution or not. The Iranians have shown a more positive approach in recent weeks, and the only way to find out if that is for real is to test it in negotiations.

If the Iranians are genuine, there is an opportunity to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in one of world’s most unpredictable regions.

I am here with a simple message: It is in these challenging moments that Israel can take comfort that there are countries that will never compromise on Israel’s security. Britain is one of those countries.

More than that, Iran is not just Israel’s problem. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its support for terrorism present a threat to the region and the world. Right now, Iran remains in breach of six UN Security Council Resolutions.

These are not issues between Iran and Israel, they are issues between Iran and the world.

And so it would be neither right nor wise for Israel to chart its way forward on the issue as if it were alone.

We are clear that a nuclear armed Iran would jump-start a regional nuclear arms race that would threaten not only Israel but the world. That is why we have led the world with some of the most stringent financial sanctions on Iran. It is why we have placed such a high value on our cooperation with Israel against Iran’s nuclear program.

The Iranians could not be more wrong if they mistake our commitment to parliamentary democracy for weakness. We have made clear that while we welcome the positive tone from Iran’s President Rouhani, we remain clear-eyed about the need to see real action from Iran on its nuclear program.

President Rouhani should know that our determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons program is as strong as ever. And all should know that our commitment to Israel’s security is unbreakable.

Diplomats and policy-makers sometimes talk glibly about security, as if it were just a heading for policy papers. I know that for every Israeli, it is very real. It is the difference between having confidence in the future and not, between life and death.

And Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama are all clear: A nuclear armed Iran is a grave threat to Israel’s security.

Iran’s program goes far beyond the requirements of a civilian nuclear program.

Since 2012, Iran has installed thousands more centrifuges, including the more advanced IR2M centrifuges. The regime has expanded its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and has continued work on the heavy water research reactor at Arak.

No one can be in doubt how seriously we take the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. We and our allies imposed one of the most far-reaching sanctions regimes ever adopted, which has had a huge impact on the Iranian economy.

Eleven years ago, I was living in Iran, as Britain’s deputy ambassador. I dealt daily with the Iranian regime. One of the key lessons from my time there is that the Iranian regime knows its economy is a huge vulnerability. It is inefficient, corrupt, badly managed and has tens of millions of people directly or indirectly on the government payroll. Without the regime’s oil income, it’s in trouble.

That’s why the sanctions are working. The rial has collapsed in value. Unemployment is high. Inflation is rampant. The official inflation rate of 28% is an illusion; the true figure is double that. The cost of doing business with Iran has gone up dramatically. Iran’s ability to sell its own oil has been curtailed by international sanctions that make it almost impossible to conduct financial transactions with Iran. Iran is not getting the technology it needs to sustain its own oil production, and production is down 45%, costing the Iranian exchequer over $40 billion a year. The reserves of the Iranian regime are shrinking fast.

This explains the change in the Iranian tone – why have we witnessed such a marked change in their rhetoric.

Because the government is under unprecedented pressure due to the sanctions. The Iranian government also know that there is a simple way to bring sanctions to an end. By giving the international community the confidence it needs that Iran is not developing and will not develop a nuclear weapon.

Diplomatic success often follows a readiness to use hard power. The reason that Iran is now at the negotiating table is because we have imposed and maintained some of the toughest sanctions in modern times.

And last week in Geneva we saw a new tone in the negotiations – for the first time an apparent willingness to negotiate rather than simply to talk.

But I understand the skepticism in Israel – and not just in Israel – about the new, positive tone from Iran. After all, the centrifuges are still spinning.

To succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by the right actions, and they will need to be transparent and verifiable.

After all, it is the Iranian government’s choices alone that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place, and it is those choices that need to change if the sanctions are to be lifted.

So I want to be absolutely clear: while the centrifuges are spinning, while inspectors are denied full and free access to nuclear sites, while there is any sense that Iran is prevaricating or reneging on any commitments, we will continue to maintain strong sanctions.

As Foreign Secretary William Hague has made clear, while we welcome the positive tone and do not want to waste a possible opportunity, a substantial change in British or Western policies on the Iranian nuclear program requires a substantive change in that program.

We need to be crystal clear as we go into this negotiation.

We are not naive. We have ample experience of dealing with the Iranian regime and go into this with our eyes open.

As we take part in these negotiations, we will keep clear in our minds one thing above all others – the infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program, how many centrifuges they have, and how long it would take them to develop a bomb.

We will neither rush nor tarry. Iran’s nuclear program marches on, and as more centrifuges get installed so it becomes harder to negotiate a solution that gives us all sufficient reassurance. The clock is ticking.

But the clock is not at zero.

And it is far from clear than time is working against us. The leaders of Iran are watching their economy crumble, their unemployment grow, their factories shut, their reserves shrink. They know that if these talks do not go somewhere in a sensible time frame we will be bringing in the next, even tougher round of sanctions.

We are all in favor of resolving this issue through negotiations rather than through military means. The question is whether such a negotiated outcome is possible – whether the rulers of Iran are willing to make take the concrete, verifiable steps needed for us to have confidence that they cannot develop nuclear weapons quickly. We hope that negotiations will lead to concrete results, and it is important that we maintain the positive momentum. But we should not forget that Iran’s nuclear program is continuing to develop.

Given our preference for a negotiated outcome, we should test whether this possibility exists. We have an opportunity, but we must not take the smiles at face value. Neither should we rule out in advance the possibility that negotiations might succeed. Instead we should test whether the same motivation that makes them smile might also cause them to make meaningful steps on their nuclear program.

I do not want to preempt the negotiations by saying exactly what those steps should be. But by the nature of it being negotiation and not a surrender, it will involve a serious discussion about whether Iran will give the international community what we need to have sufficient confidence. And that means Israel having sufficient confidence, too.

As friends of Israel, we understand and respect Israel’s concerns.

We are neither naïve about Iran, nor blind to the risks. And we do not underestimate the difficulties ahead.

The shadow of a nuclear Iran has stood over the people of Israel for too long. Right now, we have an opportunity to test whether that shadow can be removed peacefully. We will not be naïve, we will not do a bad deal, we will neither rush nor allow Iran to play for time.

Where the negotiations go, I do not know. But I do know that Israel does not face the threat from Iran alone.

The writer is the UK ambassador to Israel. This op-ed was adapted from his address to the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference in Herzliya on Thursday

The astute Saudi nose | JPost | Israel News.

( It’s as if Saudi and Israel have made a deal.  They’ll say what we can’t say.  We’ll do what they can’t do.  – JW )

The Saudis intuit that Obama actually believes that the humbling of America will bring healing to the world.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi intelligence chief and power behind the Arabian throne, gave a bombshell talk to European diplomats this week, a talk that should shake the foundations of every foreign minister’s bureau in the world.

Bandar said plainly that Saudi Arabia was gravely disappointed with the United States for its malfeasance in not dealing forcefully with Syria and Iran, and that consequently the kingdom will make a “major shift” and downgrade its dealings with the US.

Bandar reportedly criticized Washington for failing to act effectively against Bashar Assad; for failing to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed a 2011 Iranian-backed antigovernment revolt; for failing to back the military overthrow of Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt; and most of all, for moving dangerously toward a thaw in relations with Tehran.

Riyadh “doesn’t want to find itself any longer in a situation where it is dependent [on America].”

Saudi Arabia’s former spy chief and ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, also hit out at the White House this week for its embrace of an agreement to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons instead of carrying out a cruise-missile strike against Assad’s forces.

“The current charade of international control over Bashar’s chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious and designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down but also to help Assad to butcher his people,” said Prince Turki.

The Saudi uptake on all this, Bandar said, is a decision to “limit interaction” with the US, raising questions about future arms purchases and oil sales. And in an unprecedented move last week, Saudi Arabia rejected its first offer of a seat on the UN Security Council, a move widely interpreted as a slap at the US.

In short, the Saudis smell that the Obama administration is selling them out. In particular, they sense that US President Barack Obama is cooking up a “grand bargain” with the Iranians that will give Tehran predominance in the Gulf and beyond, leaving Saudi Arabia at extreme disadvantage.

They smell American debility and betrayal.

The astute and unapologetic Saudis always had a good nose for the shifting scents and odors of this unforgiving region. They never have had a problem distinctly sniffing out allies and foes. And they never have had difficulty in acting independently to protect their interests. Now it seems that they are preparing to shift directions – away from Washington’s weakness.

The titanic Saudi shift comes as no surprise to anybody whose nostrils have been alert and eyes have been wide open over the past five years. It can’t possibly be a surprise to Israeli leaders. In fact, I’m sure it isn’t any surprise at all to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Note Netanyahu’s remark a few weeks ago about surprising “converges of interests” that are emerging in the region. I think that he was hinting at serious Saudi- Israeli talks.

Just like Israel, the Saudis fear that Obama is preparing for a seismic shift in US alliances in the region, moving from partnership with the much-weakened princes of Saudi Arabia and the much-maligned leaders of Israel to a “grand civilizational bargain” with the powerful and assertive ayatollahs of Iran. As such, the Saudis are concerned, like Israel, that Obama might quietly acquiesce in Iran’s climb to near-nuclear status in exchange for understandings with Tehran on division of power in the region.

In the past I have noted that Obama very clearly believes that America acts with too much hubris in its foreign and defense policy.

He thinks he can leave the world a better place after eight years in office by cutting America down to size and allowing other, just-asmoral (in Obama’s eyes) powers to emerge – such as, perhaps, the powerful Islamic leaders of Tehran.

It appears that the Saudis understand this. They intuit that Obama actually believes that the humbling of America will bring healing to the world; that bowing before Ayatollahs Khamenei and Rouhani will make the world a better place.

In this situation, Israel has no choice but to dance artfully: maintain the strategic alliance with Washington as best as possible, while waiting for the eight lean years of Obama to end, and then hope that America will snap back to itself.

In the meantime, Israel must be careful not to rely exclusively on American guarantees or assurances on key security and diplomatic matters. Jerusalem must safeguard its national interests – in coordination with Washington where possible, and independently where necessary. Even if this means working with the Saudis behind Obama’s back.

Iran’s political comedy and U.S. sanctions – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

Had not the economic sanctions become unbearable, perhaps Iran would not be forced to perform its current political comedy expressing its desire for reconciliation with the West and finding a solution to the nuclear issue.

The economic sanctions are real but they are not enough to force Iran to stop its military nuclear project, despite the fact that its oil revenues have dropped to half of what they once were as a result of U.S. pressure. In light of the prevention Iran’s use of the dollar in its transactions, as well as U.S. threats against companies dealing with Iran, the Islamic Republic has diminished financial capability. The subsequent lack of purchasing power has led Iran to fail to manage its internal needs, including the need for refined petroleum products.

The U.S. administration believes that by opening the door to negotiations, it is giving Iran an opportunity to make concessions, taking advantage of Iran’s critical situation. Otherwise, why impose a financial blockade if it won’t be translated into political results?

There is no doubt that negotiations and searching for a peaceful solution is the right step to take if the new Iranian president really wants to end the blockade on his country. Whether he was forced to or whether he wants peace and is ready for a political deal regarding Iran’s nuclear project. Nevertheless, all indications suggest the opposite. Iran is facing a difficult situation and economic hardship, but it is not yet obliged to surrender and accept the required deal. There are no indications that the Iranian economy is in danger of collapsing, or that the country is exposed to bankruptcy. There is no panic inside Iran and the market is not in a situation that would force the government to make a move soon. The problem is not with the sanctions, that are being imposed well and that need more time to create a visible impact. The problem is that economic sanctions alone are not enough, especially as Iran has almost accomplished its nuclear program’s aims. Iran can reach nuclear success before facing financial bankruptcy.

Why agree to talk?

As for why Iran has been so generous as to undertake negotiations, the reason is that Iranians believe that U.S. President Barack Obama is in a critical position. Indeed, he has already threatened them with serious action if they continue with their nuclear project. However, personally he does not want to wage a war against them. This is why Iran decided to resort to the carrot and stick approach with the White House, hoping that the next two years will pass before Obama asks his generals to destroy Iran’s facilities.

The U.S. administration believes that by opening the door to negotiations, it is giving Iran an opportunity to make concessions

Abdulrahman al-Rashed

This is similar to what the Russian stance regarding the chemical weapons in Syria. A CNN journalist asked the Russian ambassador to the United Nations if the initiative to eliminate the chemical weapons was a plan to save their ally Bashar al-Assad from the U.S. military strike. He replied saying that it may be an initiative to save the American president from the critical situation he was facing. He meant that Obama does not want to launch a strike on Syria, and thus the initiative serves the interests of President Obama more than President Assad. Whatever the truth was, the delay in taking a decisive resolution is worsening the situation.

If Iran does not feel that the threats are serious, it will keep on initiating political and military hostilities. This is not an academic theory; the history of Iran reveals a long series of military activities from the Middle East to Australia, Argentina and Central Africa. Is it possible for Iran, which is on the verge of possessing the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, to give up its hostile policy? It is not logical that Iran decides to change this policy simply because there is a new president. This president was actually the head of Iran’s intelligence community at the time of the aforementioned attacks!

This article was first published in al-Sharq al-Awsat on Oct. 25, 2013.

_______________________________

Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.

Sheldon Adelson’s ‘Bomb empty Iranian desert’ comment | JPost | Israel News.

I would hope that the alarm engendered by Sheldon’s statement on US action against a nuclear Iran will engender a much stronger protest against Tehran’s actual development of an atomic weapon.

Last Tuesday I organized an event in New York City at Yeshiva University that addressed the two existential threats confronting the Jewish people worldwide: a nuclear Iran in the Middle East and assimilation in the West. The event, the full video of which is available here, was organized in response to President Obama’s recent overtures to Iran and the Pew Research study that painted a devastating portrait of the declining state of American Jewry.

The discussion, featuring the world’s leading Jewish philanthropist, Sheldon Adelson, Pulitzer-prize winning Wall Street Journal Foreign Affairs columnist Bret Stephens, and Yeshiva University President Richard Joel, was widely reported on and attracted scores of press. But one comment in particular made global headlines and lit up the blogosphere.

In response to my question as to what the United States should do to show Iran that we are serious about preventing them from getting a nuclear device, Sheldon said that an atomic bomb should be detonated in an empty Iranian desert as a warning to the regime of the lengths to which we will go to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons. The nuclear demonstration in a desert wasteland should “not hurt a soul, except for a few rattlesnakes,” but should serve as a shot across their bow.

Asked the next day how earnest Sheldon had been, Ron Reese, his spokesman, said, “As one of the country’s most successful entrepreneurs, Mr. Adelson was using hyperbole to make a point that — based on his nearly seven decade-long experience negotiating business deals — actions speak louder than words.”

But whether media commentators saw Sheldon as being serious or purposefully using exaggeration in order to make the larger point that the United States must go to extremes to ensure that Iran never gets a nuke, I found the reaction to his statement illuminating as to the double standards that are often employed on matters relating to Israel.

In 2005 when former Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, suggested that Israel must be wiped off the map, with the murder of the six million Jews who live there being the precondition of such erasure, he somehow managed to get invited to speak at Columbia University and, repeatedly, from the rostrum of the United Nations where he reiterated his genocidal intent against the Jewish state. And yes, Ahmadinejad’s comments of course provoked outrage. But his stated intention of perpetrating a second holocaust still did not get him barred from receiving prestigious invitations from the likes of the Council on Foreign relations.

Sheldon’s glib comments about nuking rattle snakes seemed to rattle many of the bloggers who were at our event even more than Ahmadinejad’s threats.

And let’s not fool ourselves about Iran’s genocidal posture toward Israel even post-Ahmadinejad. As recently as this March, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the true power in Iran, threatened to “destroy Tel Aviv and Haifa.” Last August he said that “the fake Zionist [regime] will disappear from the landscape of geography,” adding that the “cancerous tumor” Israel had to be removed, expressing the hope that the Arab spring would inspire an Islamic “awakening” that would ultimately fulfill Iran’s goal of annihilating Israel.

Indeed, when I sat with Sheldon on the podium and heard him make his remark, my initial thought was that his purpose was to goad his more liberal critics into attacking the policy so that their double standards on nuclear threats against Israel could be exposed. Would they show outrage at Sheldon’s comments about a nuke in an empty Iranian desert, but not be at least as enraged by Iran’s continued threats of annihilation of the Jewish state?”

Why is the government of President Rouhani of Iran being treated as moderate when it has yet to repudiate the genocidal aspirations of both Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei? Why is President Obama calling Rouhani on the phone and trying to shake his hand at the UN while he is still enriching uranium to build a nuclear bomb? Should there not first be the demand that Iran at least stop?

When I read of the holocaust I often ask myself how Hitler was allowed to rise to prominence in the first place. After all, the world bore continuous witness to the hatred and venom that spewed from his speeches and writings against the Jews. So why didn’t they stop him?

But in light of Ahmadinejad being invited to address Ivy League Universities and the most prestigious think tanks in America amid his stated goal of exterminating the Jewish state, I now understand. Whatever Hitler said, nobody took him seriously. They treated his rantings as a tasteless form of benign political posturing. They found him darkly amusing. And it took the incineration of six million Jews and the destruction of much of Europe to discover that ultimately the joke was on us.

I would hope that the alarm engendered by Sheldon’s statement on the extent to which the United States should go to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon will at least engender a much stronger protest against its actual development. And if so, then at least, whatever the disagreement with Sheldon’s hyperbolic comments, he sure got your attention.

US: No sanctions lifting at front end of Iran nuclear talks | JPost | Israel News.

White House official: Iran must take “concrete steps” before US sanctions relief; Washington says wants flexibility to pursue diplomatic track in next round of negotiations set for November 7-8.

The Big Fraud: Tehran’s ScanEagle gift to Russia covered handover of secret US R170 drone technology.

Iran presents Russian Gen. Viktor Bondarev with not one but two copied US drones

The Iranian media played up the presentation Tuesday, Oct. 22, of a copy of the US-made ScanEagle by Iran’s air force chief Farzad Esmayeeli to Lt. Gen. Viktor Bondarev, visiting Russian air force chief. Both used the ceremony to celebrate “Iran’s success in reverse-engineering and mass-producing” the American unmanned low-altitude reconnaissance drone, which it claimed to have captured in Dec. 2012.

The Russian air force commander examined the ScanEagle and admired the handiwork of the Iranian aeronautical engineers who he said had even upgraded the ScanEagle’s capabilities.

debkafile: This incident will go down was one of the biggest military intelligence frauds ever perpetrated before a battery of video cameras for world publication, because it was no more than a red herring to conceal a secret handover not long before. A far more valuable gift was quietly handed to the Russian general earlier at the same Khatam al-Anbiya air base. It was a replica complete with secret technology of a prize long coveted by Moscow: America’s most secret drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel captured by Iran on a CIA mission a year earlier on Dec. 13, 2011, and prized for its unique UAV stealth technology and intelligence-gathering devices linked to military satellites.
Tehran has claimed more than once that its engineers had succeeded in replicating and reusing Sentinel technology in its own drones. Since this drone was not actually downed by the Iranians, but by the Chinese cyber warfare experts assisting them, Moscow has always suspected that the Chinese were allowed to examine and copy its secrets.

Moscow therefore pressed Tehran for a close-up examination of this high-value drone and was refused until now.

According to Tehran, some of the RQ-170’s devices were implanted and tested in the drone which the Lebanese Hizballah sent over Israel on Oct. 6, 2012 and which evaded detection by Israeli radar for more than an hour. Before it was discovered and downed, the Iranian UAV flew over strategic Israeli locations including the Dimona nuclear reactor.
debkafile’s military sources report that, even though the real prize was concealed, the fact of Iran’s ceremonial presentation to a Russian general of a copycatted high-tech American drone, and its formal acceptance by the Russian in a videotaped ceremony at an Iranian military base, was a calculated dual snub for the United States and the Obama administration. Both parties showed they were unconcerned about US payback. They were saying, furthermore, that if the Americans give Iran a hard time in the negotiations for curbing its nuclear program, Russia will take Iran’s part and their cooperation may take military form.

debkafile’s military and intelligence sources point to three aspects of the burgeoning Russian-Iranian military friendship:

1. Washington has refrained from response. The Obama administration has apparently resolved to let Russian-Iranian military cooperation pass without demur, even at the cost of damaging US military and intelligence interests, to avoid upsetting the partnership between the two presidents, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, in tackling Iranian nuclear negotiations and diplomacy for ending the Syrian conflict.

2. President Obama has already paid for this partnership twice. Saudi Arabia, one of America’s closest and oldest Middle East allies, has signaled its withdrawal from Washington’s course in the region and anger with US cooperation with Moscow and Tehran.

Israel too is preparing for unilateral action which may conflict with current US policy. Israel and Saudi Arabia may even find some rewards in working together.

3. The most obvious question now is what makes Russia and Iran so proud? In the end, all they have achieved is to pass from hand to hand sophisticated American military technology, stolen and copycatted because it is beyond both their capacities to produce on their own.

ISIS: Iran’s bomb-making timeline shortens – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Institute for Science and International Security estimates Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb in less than two months, if it uses all its 20% stockpile. Tehran parliamentarian says Iran has enough enriched fuel for medical reactor

Reuters

A US think-tank that closely tracks Iran’s nuclear programme warned the time Iran would need to produce enough weapons-grade material for a bomb was getting shorter.

The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) estimated that Iran could now produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb, about 25 kg, in as little as about 1-1.6 months, if it used all its 20% stockpile.

Additional time would be required to make the actual nuclear weapon but such work would likely be carried out at secret sites and would be difficult to detect, it said in a report.

“The most practical strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is to prevent it from accumulating sufficient nuclear explosive material, particularly in secret or without adequate warning,” ISIS said.

“The shortening breakout times have implications for any negotiation with Iran,” it said on Thursday.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency are believed to visit Iran’s enrichment facilities about once a week. The UN agency, based in Vienna, said it had no comment on Hosseini’s remarks for now. Diplomats accredited to the IAEA said they were not aware of any halt of higher-level enrichment.

Iranian MPs have in the past made statements about Iran’s nuclear programme that the government later denied.

While members of parliament’s national security commission are regularly briefed on the nuclear programme, they are not directly involved in policy-making. The big decisions are made by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Western officials have said Iran must stop enriching uranium to 20%, increase the transparency of its nuclear programme, reduce its uranium stockpiles and take other steps to reassure the world that it is not seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran and six world powers – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany – emerged from a new round of nuclear negotiations in Geneva last week saying these had been positive and constructive.

The meeting was the first since Iranian President Hassan Rohani came to office in August promising to try to resolve the nuclear dispute and win an easing of sanctions.

Follow-up talks will be held in Geneva on Nov. 7-8.

Tehran denies allegations by Western powers that it is seeking the capability to produce nuclear arms.

‘Iran halts most sensitive uranium enrichment work’

Iran has halted its most sensitive uranium enrichment work, a senior Iranian parliamentarian was quoted as saying, a move that would meet a main demand of world powers negotiating with Tehran over its disputed nuclear work.

Any such development would be a big surprise however, as Western experts believe Iran would want to use its higher-grade enrichment as a bargaining chip to win relief from stringent sanctions which have mangled the Iranian economy.

Iran’s enrichment of uranium to levels of 20% is sensitive as it is a relatively short technical step to increase that to the 90% needed for making a nuclear warhead.

Hossein Naqavi Hosseini, a senior member of the parliamentary national security commission, said Iran had stopped enriching uranium above the 5% required for civilian power stations as it already had all the 20% enriched fuel it needs for a medical research reactor in Tehran.

“Enrichment over five percent depends on the needs of the country; Iran’s nuclear industry requires 20% enrichment for providing the fuel for its Tehran reactor, but this site has its required fuel at the moment and there is no need for further production,” parliament’s website quoted Hosseini as saying.

“Tehran will decide whether to have over 5% enrichment or not itself, but the issue of suspension or halt of enrichment activities is meaningless because no production is taking place at the moment,” he said.

Iran’s production and stockpile of 20% uranium is closely watched in the West and Israel.

The Jewish state, believed to be the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East, has suggested it could launch military strikes if Iran acquired enough of the material for one bomb, but Iran has kept its 20% stockpile below that level.