U.S. and European oil and financial sanctions are imposing hardships on the Iranian public, driving up the cost of living, causing shortages of medicine and meat, and fueling popular resentment against the West, Iran’s top economic official told reporters today.

But the official, Iran’s Minister of Economy and Finance Seyed Shamseddin Hoseini, told reporters at the Iranian mission to the United Nations today the long-term impact of the sanctions would be to make Iran’s economy more self-reliant, and that Tehran would never bow to U.S. and European pressure to halt its nuclear program.

Addressing Western reporters at a breakfast of fruit, fried eggs, walnuts, and croissants, Hoseini said that U.S.-backed sanctions targeting the Iranian Central Bank have made it impossible to transfer funds to companies selling even the most basic goods to Iran. For instance, he said, foreign farmers seeking to export beef to Iran have been unable to secure money transfers to conclude the sale.

“So, as a result, our people are consuming a little bit less meat,” he said. “If you were in the shoes of the average Iranian how would you judge the current situation? What, there is no [difference] between a nuclear installation and beef?”

U.S. and European diplomats say that while international sanctions are designed to impede the government’s ability to develop nuclear weapons they acknowledge that some of the measures imposed on Iran’s oil and financial sector may inadvertently harm ordinary citizens.

But they say that they have exempted basic foods and humanitarian goods, including medicines, from a list of sanctioned goods. Tehran, they contend, bears the greatest responsibility for the plight of the Iranian people because it has repeatedly failed to abide by multiple Security Council resolutions demanding it freeze its uranium enrichment program.

Iran maintains that it has no intention of developing a nuclear weapon, and that the program is for peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity. It has argued that the West’s exemption on the import of medicines and humanitarian goods is meaningless given the refusal of international suppliers to transfer funds to Iranian banks and business out of fear they may be violating U.S. or European financial sanctions.

Hoseini claimed that the true objective of Washington and other European powers was not simply to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, but to prevent it from competing with them in the wider sciences, including aerospace industries, nanotechnology, and the nuclear sciences.

“We believe that the nuclear issue is not the central reason behind these sanctions; this is only a cover,” he said. “These are forbidden frontiers for us to cross into.” Only the big powers and their friends, he added, have “permission to cross that threshold.”

Iran “will continue our scientific progress and programs,” Hoseini said. In the meantime, the Iranian government is exploring ways to endure the sanctions, including providing rations to Iranian citizens and trying to cultivate new trade partners beyond. “Realism forces you to find new ways to get creative,” he said.

“We were continuing on a path and they created obstacles on our path,” he said. But “we will never stop behind the obstacles they put in our path.”

Despite the challenges, Hoseini said that Iran is coping.

“Don’t think for a moment now … there are no pharmaceuticals or medicines in Iran. Do not think that hospitals are unable to perform their daily health care operations or perform needed surgeries.”

Asked to comment on reports that the sanctions were crippling Iranians, doubling the price of basic staples like meat in the past month, he acknowledged that prices of “foodstuffs have increased across the board.” But, he added, “Of course, I don’t know which butcher shop you use in Iran because I have not heard prices of meat having doubled during the past month. They must have given you a raw deal.”

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Senator Ben Cardin, (D-MD), added his voice to those questioning Chuck Hagel's fitness for the job as defense secretary, faulting his former Senate colleague's preference for U.N. sanctions against Iran over U.S. bilateral measures.

Interviewed on MSNBC on Tuesday, Cardin took issue with Hagel's contention that it is wiser to pursue U.N. sanctions to compel Iran to curtail its nuclear ambitions than to impose unilateral U.S. sanctions.

"I have not supported unilateral sanctions because, when it is us alone, they don't work and they just isolate the United States," Hagel told his hometown paper, The Journal Star on Monday. "United Nations sanctions are working."

Cardin countered that the United States is "looked upon internationally as the leader and we have a responsibility to lead on sanctions." In a sense, Cardin and Hagel are both partly right. U.N. sanctions are having an impact on Iran's ability to do business. But they would not have nearly the same sting if they were not reinforced by a patchwork of U.S. and European measures that target Tehran's financial system and oil industry.

But Cardin used a curious example to make his case. In his interview, Cardin claimed that U.S. leadership on sanctions against South Africa in the era of white rule had helped bring about an end to Apartheid.

"If the United States would  waited for the international community we dare say ... [it] ... would have been a lot longer before it ended its Apartheid state," Cardin said. "The United States showed leadership, the rest of the world followed."

Not so fast, Mr. Senator. The U.S. position on sanctions varied since 1948, when South Africa's nationalist party came to power adopting a raft of laws that codified the country's apartheid system that relegated the country's black to second class citizens. But it could hardly be viewed as leading the cause.

The first stirring of unease about South Africa's discriminatory policies emerged in 1946, even before the nationalists came into office, when India asked that the country's discrimination of ethnic Indians be placed on the agenda for discussion during the first session of the U.N. General Assembly.

The U.S. position dating back to the 1960s could be best described as highly ambivalent -- if not outright hostile to sanctions. Washington backed a 1960 Security Council resolution deploring the South African police's killing of 69 unarmed protesters in Sharpesville. And the John F. Kennedy administration backed a voluntary arms embargo. But U.S. administrations dating back to the 1960s opposed calls by developing nations, including African governments, for a mandatory arms embargo and economic sanctions.

In October 1962, a senior U.S. diplomat at the U.N., Francis Plimpton, vowed to "continue to oppose" the imposition of U.N. sanctions on South Africa, dismissing them as ineffective, according to a useful chronology published by The Peterson Institute for International Economics.

On August 7, 1963, the United States voted in favor of a U.N. Security Council resolution recommending states cease the shipment of arms to South Africa, and Washington decided to end U.S. military sales. But days before the vote, Adlai Stevenson, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, argued against making them mandatory. "The application of sanctions in this situation is not likely to bring about the practical result that we seek," Stevenson said at the time. "Punitive measures would only provoke intransigence and harden the existing situation..."

It would be another 14 years -- in response to the violent repression that followed the Soweto riots -- until the United States under President Jimmy Carter backed a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. The U.S. cut off exports of any items to South Africa as there was reason to believe it would be used by the military. But the United States and its European allies still resisted U.N. General Assembly calls for an oil embargo on South Africa.

U.S. opposition to sanctions resurfaced following President Ronald Reagan's presidential election. Reagan's assistant secretary of state, Chester "Chet" Crocker, inaugurated the policy of "constructive engagement" with the apartheid regime, relaxing trade restrictions on the South African military. But as the Reagan administration sought to bolster relations with the South African government, civil society groups in the United States and abroad began to mobilize economic and political pressure on the Pretoria. "The international economic actions against South Africa that were most damaging were taken by private actors, not governments," Philip Levy argued in this 1999 paper.

As for Iran, Cardin said he still needs to understand why Hagel would be willing to forgo the imposition of unilateral sanctions on Iran when the international community could be expected to follow our lead if we did. "These are questions I think as a senator I have a responsibility to get his answer before making a decision on whether to support his confirmations," he said.

Fair enough. But the assumption that the world will follow is far from proven. Russia and China have made it clear they would block any new U.N. sanctions resolutions that targeted Iran's economy. The truth is that it is extremely difficult to fairly assign credit for the success or failures of sanctions in South Africa or Iraq. But it would help to have a reasonably clear-headed account of the facts.

Follow me on Twiiter @columlynch 

So what does Iran get out of its chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a Cold War-era body that has frequently been dismissed by Western pundits as a relic of a bygone era?

For one thing: a ready-made constituency of 120 countries -- many of them close U.S. allies like Chile, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore -- supporting Iranian policies on a range of issues, from its pursuit of nuclear self-sufficiency to efforts to rally international opposition to an Israeli strike against its nuclear facilities.

Iran's chairmanship of the body, which will last three years, is also undercutting efforts by the United States, European powers, and Israel to isolate the Iranian government, a fact that was driven home by the participation of key leaders, including U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Egyptian leader Mohamed Morsy, at the NAM summit in Tehran last month. (To be fair, Ban used the occasion to criticize the Iranians, while Morsy blasted Iran's close ally, Syria, for repressing his people.)

Today, Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, delivered a statement on behalf of the NAM at a high-level U.N. meeting on countering nuclear terrorism that underscored states' rights to nuclear power, proposed the creation of a treaty prohibiting military strikes on nuclear energy programs, and demanded Israel "renounce possession of nuclear weapons" and submit its secret, undeclared, program to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The speech repeated many longstanding positions by the Non-Aligned Movement, which exercises considerable influence over U.N. debates.

But its delivery by a high-ranking Iranian official lent additional weight to Tehran's case that efforts by the United States and other world powers to rein in Iran's nuclear program could be used against others. Iran, which is the target of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding it cease its enrichment of uranium, claims its nuclear activities are allowed by the landmark Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The IAEA, which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the NPT, has expressed serious concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, citing a pattern of withholding critical evidence of their nuclear activities and failing to fully cooperate with efforts to investigate reports that it is pursuing nuclear weapons. The agency recently raised concern that Iran has sharply stepped up enrichment activities in breach of Security Council resolutions.

Salehi's speech also posed an indirect challenge to Israel to hold off any military attack on Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran claims is used solely for the production of electricity, but which Israel insists is a cover for a nuclear weapons program.

"NAM reaffirms the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities -- in operation or under construction -- constitutes a grave violation of international law, and purposes of the UN Charter and regulations of the IAEA," Salehi told the New York gathering. "NAM recognizes the urgent need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument prohibiting attacks or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy."

The statement also included a broadside against the U.N. Security Council, which has adopted numerous resolutions demanding Iran halt nuclear activities that are not expressively prohibited by the NPT. The Iranian gambit plays on broader resentment at the United Nations against the Security Council, which has been accused of overreaching and seeking to impose constraints on countries nuclear energy programs that are permissible under international treaty.

"NAM underlines the need to ensure that any action by the Security Council does not undermine the UN Charter and existing multilateral treaties on weapons of mass destruction," said Salehi.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that his plan to travel to Tehran later this month is "a major mistake even if it is being made with good intentions," according to a statement from Netanyahu's office.

The U.N. has not announced that Ban is planning to travel to Iran, but U.N.-based diplomats say privately that he will attend a high-level meeting of the non-aligned movement in Tehran later this month.

It will be Ban's first trip to Tehran since becoming secretary general in 2007.

While there, Ban is expected to hold meetings with the Iranian leader on a range of issues, including Iran's nuclear program and its role in Syria.

"During your tenure as U.N. Secretary General, you have acted fairly," Netanyahu told Ban, according to the statement. "This is why I was so disappointed to hear about your intention to attend the non-aligned summit that will be held in Tehran at the end of the month.... Mr. Secretary General your place is not in Tehran"

A spokesman for Ban, Farhan Haq, said "there is no trip to announce, and consequently no comment to make in response to the read out" of Ban's conversation with Netanyahu.

Ban's relationship with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been extremely chilly.

He routinely criticizes the Iranian leader for refusing to comply with Security Council demands to suspend his country's uranium enrichment program. U.N. diplomats said he would use the trip to apply pressure on the Iranian government to try to persuade the Iranian leader to help calm the violence in Syria, Iran's most important regional ally.

But Netanyahu faulted his plans to visit Tehran on the grounds that it would "grant legitimacy" to a regime that has flouted its international obligations and poses an existential threat to Israel.

"To reward Iran for its impudence by a visit of the U.N. Secretary General would be a horrible mistake," the statement said.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Russia and other key powers have signaled support U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan's plan for a political transition leading to the establishment of a national unity government, according to U.N. based diplomats. But Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, cautioned this morning that no final agreement has been concluded.

Annan will host a meeting in Geneva this Saturday of key foreign ministers, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Lavrov, to seek and endorsement for  his latest plan to end a bloody 16-month uprising that has left more than 10,000 dead and raised fear of a widening sectarian conflict engulfing the region.

Annan hopes to use the meeting to galvanize support among key global and regional powers, particularly the United States and Russia, for his transitional plan, and increase pressure on the Syrian government and the opposition to accept it.

Annan's plan -- which is detailed in a three page non-paper that has not been made public -- would call on the key players in Syria and their foreign supporters to end the violence and create an "environment of calm and peace that will allow a transition," according to a U.N.-based diplomat briefed on the plan.

If those conditions are met, Annan would lead a mediation effort aimed at forging a national unity government comprised members of the Syrian government and individuals drawn from the disparate opposition. But the new government would "exclude those who are detrimental to stability and reconciliation and the transition," according to the diplomat. Russia, the official said, has "signaled to Annan that they can accept the plan."

The plan for a national unity government, which was first reported last night by Bloomberg and Reuters, makes no mention of the what role President Bashar al-Assad might play in a new government, according to a diplomat familiar with the plan, but diplomats who favor his departure say that it is impossible to see the Syrian president as anything but an obstacle to a stable transition.

Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, told the Security Council earlier this month that Moscow was not "wedded" to President Assad and would agree to his departure as long as it resulted from an agreement by the Syrian government and the opposition. It remains unlikely, however, that Russia will force Assad's hand.

Lavrov voiced irritation that elements of the Annan plan had been leaked to the press ahead of the Geneva meeting. "There are no agreed drafts. Work on a possible final document continues," Lavrov said. The fate of Assad "must be decided within the framework of a Syrian dialogue by the Syrian people themselves," Lavrov told a news conference with the Tunisian foreign minister, according to a report by the French news agency, AFP. "Foreign players should not be dictating their solutions to the Syrians. We do not and cannot support any intervention or solutions dictated from abroad."
Clinton and Lavrov are scheduled to meet on Friday in St. Petersburg, where they will see if they can narrow their differences over Syria. But diplomats said the United States and Russia still differ sharply over the best course for halting the violence there, where the pace of killings, which dipped in the days following the April 12 ceasefire agreement, has since returned to pre-ceasefire levels, according to top U.N. officials.

The Annan paper also calls on the Syrian parties to stop the violence, end all human rights abuses, and guarantee the protection of minorities and accountability for perpetrators of the worst abuses.

In anticipation of the new approach, the U.N. peacekeeping department is preparing plans to change the mandate of the U.N. Supervising Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) from monitoring a non-existent ceasefire agreement and patrolling Syria's conflict ridden towns to mediating an end to the conflict. The final configuration of the new U.N. mission will have to be approved by the Security Council.

Annan's plan for a political transition had stalled earlier this week over Russia's reluctance to endorse it and over the composition of the negotiating bloc -- or "action group" -- that would be invited to participate in this weekend's meeting.

The action group includes the foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council members -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China -- plus Turkey, the secretaries general of the United Nations and Arab League, and the foreign ministers of Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar, all of whom chair Arab League committees concerned with Syria.

Annan wanted Iran, one of Syria's closest allies, and Saudi Arabia, a military supporter of Syria's armed opposition, to participate in the meeting. But Clinton had made it clear to Annan that she would not participate if Iran attended the meeting. In a compromise, Annan decided not to invite either Tehran or Riyadh, but to brief the two governments on the outcome of the meeting.

In New York, Iran's U.N. ambassador, Mohammad Khazaee, told reporters on Wednesday that "a very important fact that cannot be ignored by anybody is the influence and constructive role that the Islamic Republic of Iran has in the region. So if some powers do not want to benefit from this influence and constructive role that's their problem." But, he added: "from the beginning we have supported Mr. Kofi Annan's plan and we believe that's the best way to resolve the issues in Syria. Any kind of consultation by [Annan] with the Islamic Republic of Iran is welcomed any time."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Kofi Annan, casting around for fresh ideas to stem the violence in Syria, last week proposed inviting Iran to join the United States, Russia, and other world and regional powers seeking to craft a plan for the country's political transition.

The initiative was quickly embraced by Moscow, which proposed hosting this "contact group" for an international conference, and was just as quickly dismissed by the Obama administration, which claimed that Tehran is part of the problem in Syria, not a reliable peace partner.

But why did Annan want Iran inside the peace tent while it is purportedly supporting the Syrian government crackdown, and what impact might Tehran's involvement have on the outcome of the Syrian crisis?

Annan's negotiating team has argued that it would be best to have Iran on its side, rather than seeking to undermine it. "Iran is a key player in this crisis and if you're going to have a group that talks about what can be done to pressure the parties in Syria then you can't neglect the fact that Iran has influence on the Syrian government," Annan's spokesman, Ahmad Fawzi, told Turtle Bay.

The decision to try to include Iran was driven by an old-fashioned diplomatic dictum: you need to make peace with your enemy, not your friend. For Annan, that means inviting anyone with the power and influence to spoil the negotiating process into the peace camp, according to U.N. officials.

The United States -- under both Democratic and Republican administrations -- has accepted the need to sit down at the table with the Iranians to address regional conflicts in Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, Iraq. And U.S. policy makers have entertained talks with the Taliban to pave the way for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But the prospects for talks in the lead up to the U.S. presidential election may prove awkward, particularly at a time when high-stakes negotiations over Iran's nuclear program appear stalled again. On Monday, the United States expressed its frustration by announcing yet another round of sanctions against Tehran. While the administration has not ruled out the possibility of an Iranian role in the Syrian peace process it has reacted coolly too it.

"There is no question that [Iran] is actively engaged in supporting the government in perpetrating the violence on the ground," Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations told reporters at U.N. headquarters on Thursday. "So we think Iran has not demonstrated to date a readiness to contribute constructively to a peaceful political solution."

The United States and other critics say that Iran's interests run contrary to the U.N.'s goals and that Iran will not support a peace effort that threatens to jeopardize its own interests. "No country in the world stands to lose more from an Assad collapse than Iran. They would lose their only regional ally and their key thoroughfare to Hezbollah," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Iran's position on Syria is to publicly call for reform and conciliation, while privately financing and arming the Assads to the teeth."

"This is an exercise that is designed to avoid confrontation on everybody's part," Brett Schaefer, who tracks the U.N. for the Heritage Foundation, told Turtle Bay. "I think the Russians, the Chinese, and Iran are going to use every opportunity they can to extend this process out, and that a number of Western countries, including the United States, are willing to go along with this because they are unwilling to step outside the U.N.-centric approach."

For China and Russia, the fate of Syria is inextricably linked to that of Iran, according to Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma. They fear that the collapse of President Bashar al-Assad will embolden the West to step up pressure to topple the mullahs in Tehran.

"This is about the strategic position of China and Russia writ large," said Landis.  "Syria is the canary in the mineshaft. If Syria is taken down, all eyes will turn to Iran."

By bringing Iran to the peace table, however, Russia would be reassuring Iran that its interests will be taken on board in any peace process. Richard Gowan, a scholar at New York University Center for International Cooperation, said that Annan is right to keep channels open to the Iranians, but that Annan has been too deferential to Syria's foreign backers.

"Annan had already made it known that he was talking to Iran on Syria: emphasizing Tehran's importance at this stage was a tactical public relations error,' he said. "It reinforced the impression that Annan is too reliant on Assad's friends in Moscow and Tehran," he told Turtle Bay. "Annan has arguably not been bold enough in challenging the regime's remaining friends."

For months, U.S. and European officials have accused Iran and Russia of supplying Damascus with weapons. Meanwhile, U.S. allies such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have reportedly funneled arms to opposition fighters. 

An April 12 ceasefire negotiated by Annan, and backed up by a team of about 300 U.N. monitors, is now in tatters. Syrian government forces continue to shell residential neighborhoods, while government-backed militia are suspected of carrying out mass killings in opposition towns. The Free Syrian Army, emboldened by fresh supplies of weapons, has vowed to fight on, saying the U.N.-brokered cease fire has been routinely violated by the government.

"Part of the problem with Syria is that both the Saudis and the Iranians see this as a proxy war for their relative regional ambitions and you can't have one in [the peace process] and the other out without creating a party motivated to subvert the concerted international action," said Jeffrey Laurenti, a U.N. expert at the Century Foundation.

For the United States, sitting down with the Iranians on an election year "is politically awkward, but a wider war around Syria is also a problem. It's not very palatable to Washington but sometimes you swallow hard in order to get a job done."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Iran denounced the United States at the United Nations on Thursday night for engaging in a pattern of "provocative and covert operations," including the use of an RQ-170 unmanned spy drone that was captured by Iranian authorities, and warned that Tehran "reserves its legitimate rights to take all necessary measures to protect its national sovereignty."

Iran's U.N. ambassador Mohammad Khazaee wrote in a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the United States has stepped up covert operations against Iran in recent months, perhaps referring to the assassination of three Iranian nuclear scientists. He called on the United Nations to condemn what he described as "acts of aggression" and to take "clear and effective measures" to "put an end to these dangerous and unlawful acts."

The diplomatic protest comes as the Iranian government has itself come under intensive criticism at the United Nations over its nuclear program, its human rights conduct, and its alleged role in an assassination plot against Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United Nations.

Earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report expressing serious "concern" that Iran has been seeking to master the technology to develop nuclear weapons capability. The U.N. General Assembly's Human Rights Council, meanwhile, adopted a resolution deploring the alleged assassination attempt.

A copy of the latest Iranian letter, which will also be presented to the presidents of the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly, was emailed to Turtle Bay by the Iranian government.

It says the American drone "violated Iran's air space" by flying "250 Kilometers deep into Iranian territory up to the northern region of the city of Tabas, where it faced prompt and forceful action by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

"This is not the only act of aggression and covert operation by the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Khazee wrote. "My Government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States Government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter."

(Full text below.)

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

* * *

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

No. 1396                          8 December 2011

Excellency,

Upon instructions from my Government, I have the honor to draw your kind attention to the provocative and covert operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United States Government, which have increased and intensified in recent months.

In the continuation of such trend, recently, an American RQ-170 unmanned spy plane, bearing a specific serial number, violated Iran 's air space. This plane flied 250 Kilometers deep into Iranian territory up to the northern region of the city of Tabas , where it faced prompt and forceful action by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In the past, the Iranian Government lodged its strong protests against similar acts by submitting several Notes including Notes No. 164440 dated 29 October 2008 and No. 268483 dated 11 February 2009 to the Government of the United States.

My Government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States Government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter. The Iranian Government expresses its strong protest over these violations and acts of aggression and warns against the destructive consequences of the recurrence of such acts. The Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its legitimate rights to take all necessary measures to protect its national sovereignty.

My Government, hereby, calls for the condemnation of such acts of aggression and requests for clear and effective measures to be taken to put an end to these dangerous and unlawful acts in line with the United Nations' responsibilities to maintain international and regional peace and security, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter.

I am sending identical letters to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council. It would be appreciated if this letter could be circulated as a document of the General Assembly under the agenda item 83 and of the Security Council.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Mohammad Khazaee

Ambassador

Permanent Representative

H.E. Mr. Ban Ki-moon

Secretary-General of the United Nations

New York

cc: H.E. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin

President of Security Council

United Nations, New York

cc: H.E. Mr. Nasser A. Al-Nasser

President of General Assembly

United Nations, New York

The International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iran's program constitutes the U.N. nuclear watchdog's strongest case ever that Iran is likely developing a nuclear weapon. But will it be enough to persuade Iran's most stalwart defenders, China and Russia, that its time to ratchet up pressure on Iran with a new round of biting U.N. sanctions?

Hardly.

In recent weeks, China and Russia mounted a pressure campaign of their own, sending top diplomats to meet with the IAEA's general director, Yukiya Amano, to convince him not to release his findings, which they view as too circumstantial and speculative.

In Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement casting doubts about the wisdom of the IAEA's decision to release raw findings before the public, saying they would doom prospects for a resumption of talks between Iran and a group of six major powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany -- over the fate of Iran's nuclear program.

"We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the sextet of international mediators and Tehran have begun to appear," according to the statement, which was reported by Reuters.

Amano's report dispenses with the IAEA's traditional caution in assessing evidence suggesting Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. "There are indications," he said plainly, "that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing."

"The agency has serious concerns regarding the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," he added. "The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

Iran, which has long denied it is developing nuclear weapons, dismissed the report as a politically motivated attack, and derided the IAEA chief as a U.S. lackey. In a statement in the official Islamic Republic News Agency, the Iranian government derided the report as "a series of false information added to the Amano report under U.S. pressure."

Senior Western diplomats say they see no signs that Iran is any more willing to engage in meaningful discussions over its nuclear intentions than it has been during more than seven years of on-and-off-again talks with the Iranians.

"Frankly, we have tried everything. They have never shown any openness ... to a substantial negotiation," France's U.N. envoy, Gerard Araud, acknowledged in a public discussion in September that I moderated at the French Consulate in New York.

Araud said that four rounds of U.N. sanctions are moving closer to harming the "crucial, vital interests" of Iran's trading partners, mostly notably Russia and China, the latter of which is becoming increasingly dependent on Iranian oil to meet the energy needs of a rapidly growing economy. "Is it possible to still tighten sanctions? Is it possible to go further, to move further?" he asked. "I doubt it. I really doubt it. Maybe in six months."

Another Western diplomat told Turtle Bay that the latest IAEA report may strengthen the West's hands in securing support for some modest measures, like expanding the number of individuals targeted by a U.N. travel ban and asset freeze, something that has been impossible to achieve since the Security Council last imposed sanctions on Iran in 2010.

But the diplomat said that more biting sanctions, like a ban on Iranian oil or gas trade, would likely trigger a Chinese or Russian veto. It's also unclear whether the United States, Britain, and France, would be keen on running the risk of disrupting an important source of the global oil supply during a period of economic crisis.

In any event, the official said, the Security Council is unlikely to even discuss the Iranian nuclear issue until next month, after the IAEA membership board meets to consider it.

But there is another reason why the Russians may be unwilling to play ball. The latest IAEA report, according to a Bloomberg news item, includes evidence put forward by an unnamed Russian scientist who helped the Iranians try to develop a strategy for boosting the yield on the force of an atomic bomb.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

It's not only that Iran refuses to recognize Israel.

The Islamic Republic's official representatives are generally barred from speaking with Israeli diplomats or even uttering the word Israel, preferring to describe their regional enemy as "that Zionist entity."

But sometimes you just really need a place to sit.

Iran's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, is pictured here at an IAEA meeting last month, seated at the Israeli delegation's desk while conducting his official business.

Soltanieh is engaged in a discussion with a member of the delegation of Ireland, which presides over the IAEA's nuclear safeguards committee, and a Cuban diplomat. He is accompanied by two other Iranian officials, according to a source who furnished Turtle Bay with this photograph.

It's hard to imagine how the top Iranian diplomat, after serving more than six years as Tehran's envoy to the atomic agency, wound up in the Israeli seat without an alarm bell going off in his head. You'd think there was a protocol office within the Iranian foreign mission responsible for avoiding such a diplomatic faux pas.

If not, maybe there will be from now on.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

There was a time when a visit to New York by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the subject of extraordinary curiosity, leading to appearances on the nations' top news shows, including Charlie Rose, and providing fodder for Saturday Night Live skits.

Who can forget the image of the comedian Andy Samberg serenading the faux Iranian leader, dressed in a shoulder-less red dress, on a romantic stroll through Manhattan streets? "I know you say there are no gays in Iran, but you're in New York baby," crooned Samberg.

The controversial Iranian leader still attracts the media elite, with lunches for top editors, broadcast anchors, and TV appearances. And the timing of the release of the two imprisoned American hikers on the eve of his visit has given a boost to his newsworthiness.

But his appearances before the U.N. General Assembly are beginning to have a routine feel to them. The Iranian provocateur mounts an attack on American and European world domination, mixing some awkward truths with patent distortions.

He takes jabs at the Zionists, and then throws out a conspiracy theory for the world to chew on. As if on schedule, the United States and its Western allies, usually represented by junior diplomats, walk out in protest.

Today was hardly different. Ahmadinejad delivered a lengthy speech that revisited a litany of Western offenses, beginning with slavery and U.S. intervention in Korea and Vietnam, and culminating with recent Western-led wars in Afghanistan, Iran, and Libya. "Do these arrogant powers really have the competence and ability to run or govern the world?" he said. "Can the flower of democracy blossom from NATO's missiles, bombs, and guns?"

Ahmadinejad then played the Holocaust card, saying the West has used "their imperialistic media network" to "threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust and the Sept. 11 event with sanctions and military actions."

"If some European countries still use the Holocaust, after six decades, as the excuse to pay fine or ransom to the Zionists, should it not be an obligation upon slave masters or colonial powers to pay reparations to the affected nations?" he asked?

He also rehashed a previous conspiracy theory suggesting that the United States had engaged in a cover-up to shield the true perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. "Who used the mysterious Sept. 11 incident as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, killing, injuring, and displacing millions in two countries with the ultimate goal of bringing into its domination the Middle East and its oil resources."

The Iranian leader sharply criticized the U.S. assassination of Osama bin Laden, suggesting that it might be a cover-up. "Why should it not have been allowed to bring him to trial to help recognize those who launched terrorist groups and brought wars and other miseries into the region?" he asked. "Is there any classified information that must be kept secret?"

After the speech, the United States quickly issued a statement denouncing Ahmadinejad. "Mr. Ahmadinejad had a chance to address his own people's aspirations for freedom and dignity, but instead he again turned to abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs and despicable conspiracy theories," said Mark Kornblau, the spokesman for Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Human rights groups also weighed in. "While President Ahmadinejad is lecturing the world from the U.N. podium, dissent is still being crushed ruthlessly in Iran and basic rights demanded by millions in the Arab world are brutally denied to Iranians who are demanding the same," said Philippe Bolopion, the U.N. representative for Human Rights Watch. "The world assembly should take with a grain of salt the remarks of a leader who said nothing about the public hanging yesterday of a 17-year-old in his own country."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

On the occasion of the Persian New Year - the traditional Iranian holiday that coincides with the beginning of spring -- the Iranian mission to the United Nations today helped organize a panel discussion to highlight the importance of nature. Entitled "Nowruz and the Earth: Harmony Between Culture and Nature," the panel discussion drew together U.N. officials, scholars and environmentalists. A delegation from Iran's government also attended the event, which was held at the Millennium U.N. Plaza Hotel. A separate observance of Nowruz was scheduled at the U.N. General Assembly Hall for Monday evening.

"Norwuz apparently is one of the oldest celebrations on the Earth," according to a press statement issued by Iran's, Afghanistan's and Tajikistan's U.N. envoys. "To commemorate Nowruz also means to promote life in harmony with nature, natural cycles and sources of life." The main task of the panel, according to the statement, is to "elaborate on the orphic interrelation between"  (in other words, discuss the links between) Nowruz and "International Mother Earth Day," which is also officially recognized by the U.N.

But a group of leading environmentalists and scholars, including Steven Cohen, executive director of Columbia University's Earth Institute and Bill McKibben, the author, issued an appeal to Tehran to release two American hikers, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer, who were detained nearly 20 months ago while crossing the border from Iraqi Kurdistan into Iran. The group said the two men have devoted their lives to promoting environmental causes. Iranians authorities detained the two men in 2008, alleging they had hiked illegally into Iran, and accused them of espionage. Baeur's fiancé, Sarah Shroud, who was arrested with the two men, was released last year.

"Josh and Shane have done nothing wrong. They had no intention of approaching the unmarked border with Iran...while they were hiking beyond a beautiful waterfall in Iraqi Kurdistan," the letter stated. "This week a delegation of Iranian environmentalists is visiting the United Nations. We welcome this delegation to the United States as we believe the greatest challenge to our planet must be confronted as one world. At the same time, we do not understand why Iran is holding these two individuals, who have both made protecting the environment a priority in their lives."

Fattal, 28, a 2004 UC Berkeley graduate with a degree in Environmental Economics and Policy, taught courses on sustainable agriculture and other topics at the Aprovecho Sustainability Education Center in Oregon. He has led workshops in Guatemalan indigenous communities on how to build fuel-efficient, non-polluting wood-burning stoves. Tao Orion, a colleague of Fattal's at Aprovecho, said he was a standout teacher who later went on to lead environmental teaching programs abroad, including in India, China and South Africa. She said the government of the Iranian delegation promoting environmental causes at the United Nations "definitely has one person in prison who could speak very eloquently about those topics."

The families and friends of the two captives say that during their nearly 600 days of detention Bauer and Fattal have met only once with their mothers, and had two brief telephone calls with family members. They contend that the two men were not spies, that they have professed their innocence in an Iranian court, and they have meant no harm to the Iranian government.

"We understand that Nowruz is a time for families to come together, reflect on the year that has passed and look with hope to the future," Bauer's and Fattal's families wrote in a separate appeal to the Iranian government today. "We extend our best wishes to everyone in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the United States and around the world who celebrates this important occasion and, from the depths of our despair, appeal to the political and religious leaders of Iran to show compassion and make this a time when we too can at last be together again as families...We beseech the Iranian authorities to show compassion and end our heartbreak."

Bauer, 28, a freelance journalist who grew up in rural Minnesota has published stories in The Nation, Mother Jones, and the San Francisco Chronicle on politics and the environment. He once chronicled the environmental impact of war in the Darfur region of Sudan in a piece entitled "The Ecology of Genocide" that ran in The Environmental Magazine. He rides a bike, rather than a car, has been a vegetarian for more than a decade, and "practices conservation" at all times.

"We voice our support for Josh and Shane, who have demonstrated nothing but respect for the earth and their fellow human beings, and appeal to Iran for their immediate release from near total isolation, with almost no access to their families or their lawyer," according to the environmentalists statement. "If Iran is sincere in its commitment to environmental stewardship, it should release Josh and Shane and allow them to rejoin our common cause."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

East Timor decisively defeated Iran today in an election to serve on the executive board of a new U.N. woman's agency, racking up a victory that highlighted the world's growing unease over Tehran's record on women's rights.

The election followed a behind the scenes campaign by the Obama administration and other Western governments to prevent Iran from undermining the credibility of the newly established U.S. backed agency with its presence on the board.

The new agency, called U.N. Women, is headed by the former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet. It was established earlier this year to consolidate the activities of four U.N. agencies that promote women's health, education and rights, and will operate on a $500 million budget. Today, the 54-member U.N. Economic and Social Council elected 41 members states to serve as the agency's board of directors. East Timor gained 36 votes and Iran 19.

Iran appeared assured of winning a seat on the new board after the U.N.'s Asia group presented a slate of ten candidates, including Iran, for the ten seats reserved for Asia on the 41 member board. But the U.S., the European Union, Canada and Australia,  encouraged other Asian states, including the Philippines and East Timor, to throw their name in. The Philippines initially decided to compete for the post, but then abruptly withdrew its name.

East Timor's leader, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Jose Ramos Horta, also decided to join the race in recent weeks. Ramos Horta had recently criticized Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for suggesting to the U.N. General Assembly that the 9/11 attacks may have been orchestrated by U.S. authorities. "What President Ahmadinejad said in this forum in regard to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was an obscenity," Ramos Horta said.

Tom Malinowski, the head of Human Rights Watch's Washington, D.C. office, praised the outcome, saying it "it's yet another example of the benefits of U.S. re-engagement at the U.N. and of what the Obama administration can achieve when it puts up a serious fight for human rights."

The board still includes several candidates, including Saudi Arabia, with poor records on women's rights. But U.S. officials said they were confident that Bachelet would prevail in pursuing a progressive women's agenda.

"Now I am not going to deny that there were several countries that are going to join the board of U.N. Women that have less than stellar records on women's rights, indeed human rights," Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador said after the vote. "U.N. Women is a vitally important institution.  We have every expectation that its establishment under the leadership of Michelle Bachelet will lead to a strengthening of capacity within the UN system to support women, enhance their rights, defend their security around their world."

Rice said the U.S. welcomed East Timor's victory over Iran, saying they "lost and they lost handily. We've made no secret of our concern that Iran joining the board U.N. women would have been an inauspicious start to that board."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

In an interview with Turtle Bay, Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that his government will continue to expand its economic relations with Iran, dismissing a major diplomatic effort by the United States and European governments to squeeze Tehran with banking and insurance sanctions.

"Nobody can ask us to stop our economic ties with Iran," Davutoglu told Turtle BayWednesday on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly debate. "We will continue to have these ties because it is in our national interest."

Turkey's expanding economic relations with its southern neighbor, Iran, have weakened American and European efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic, and punish it for its intransigent nuclear program. Despite the West's campaign to constrain Iran's commercial activities, Iranian trade with Turkey surpassed $10 billion in 2008, and could triple over the next five years, according to a senior Iranian official.

Turkey has come under scrutiny this week for allowing Iranian banks suspected of financing Iran's nuclear program to operate on Turkish soil. Reuters news agency published an investigative report indicating Turkey's growing banking partnership with Iran is providing a gateway to the European financial system, bypassing U.S. and European sanctions.

Davutoglu defended Turkey's financial dealings with Iran, saying that Ankara has no legal obligation to honor U.S. or European sanctions against Iranian banks. "We are bound only by U.N. Security Council resolutions," he said. "Bilateral sanctions [do] not bind anyone except those who have declared it."

For years, the United States and its European allies have led U.N. efforts to impose a series of sanctions resolutions on Iran for refusing to suspend its enrichment of uranium and failing to provide full cooperation to U.N. inspectors responsible for monitoring nuclear activities. But those efforts have faced resistance from Turkey and Brazil: Both voted this year against the latest round of sanctions, saying that it would be more productive to pursue further diplomatic negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

The move signaled a willingness of the emerging powers to play a more assertive role on the diplomatic stage. Today, Turkish President Abdullah Gul reinforced that message, telling the U.N. General Assembly that Turkey and other key powers need to be given a greater say on the day's most pressing security challenges. "We should keep in mind that global problems cannot be solved unilaterally, bilaterally or in small circles of like-minded nations."

Davutoglu told Turtle Bay that the new assertiveness of emerging powers like Turkey and Brazil "should not be seen as a new game" aimed at altering the balance of power at the United Nations. "But if you are member of the United Nations Security Council you have to be active for the objectives of the U.N. If you are just a passive member...then your presence in the Security Council is meaningless. Turkey can help with the solutions of the Security Council." 

Davutoglu urged Iran, the United States, and other key powers to re-start negotiations over the nuclear standoff. He pointed to recent U.S. and Iranian calls for a resumption of nuclear talks as a new opening.  "If you implement sanctions and there is no diplomatic channel, we have the experience of Iraq in the past." That period, he said, was defined by a vicious cycle of "sanctions, tensions, conflicts and this is not a good example."

"There are opportunities to solve this issue but at the same time there are very serious risks for the escalation of the crisis," he added. If diplomacy "doesn't start in [the] coming weeks and months and [if only sanctions are used to pressure] Iran, that may lead to an escalation of tensions and nobody will win out of such an escalation."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

With Congress having targeted Iran's vital fuel imports as part of its most far-reaching sanctions package yet, observers say the Tehran government has already done much to deflect the impact of the new U.S. measures.

Under the pressure of earlier Western sanctions, Iran has over the past four years reduced its dependence on foreign imports of refined oil products from about 40 percent of its domestic needs to just under 30 percent, according to analysts. The government is seeking to reduce that figure further by expanding its capacity to refine its own oil, experimenting with alternative fuels and cutting consumption by gradually eliminating subsidies on gasoline.

In the past six months, thanks to an elaborate rationing system, domestic gasoline consumption has dropped by nearly 20 percent, official statistics show. At the same time, Iran has boosted the supply available for everyday needs and built up its strategic reserves by buying refined oil products from countries such as India, Turkmenistan and the Netherlands. Government budgets show that it has spent more than $10 billion on such purchases since 2008.

Read the entire story Thomas Erdbrink and I wrote in the Washington Post.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.