VZCZCXRO6566
RR RUEHBC RUEHDE RUEHDIR RUEHKUK
DE RUEHRB #1818/01 3401749
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 061749Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY RABAT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7854
INFO RUCNIRA/IRAN COLLECTIVE
RUEHTRO/AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI 0230
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 0137
RUEHCL/AMCONSUL CASABLANCA 3728
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 RABAT 001818 
 
SIPDIS 
 
C O R R E C T E D  C O P Y  (ADDED ADDRESSEE) 
 
SIPDIS 
 
VIENNA FOR UNVIE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL PP MNUC IAEA AORC IR MO
SUBJECT: IRAN SCORES POINTS IN DEBATE: "NUCLEAR IRAN: WAR 
AND PEACE" 
 
RABAT 00001818  001.4 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: Some Iranian arguments resonated with 
students at a debate, "Nuclear Iran: War and Peace," held on 
November 23 at a graduate school in Rabat.  Iran,s 
Ambassador argued for Iran,s right to nuclear technologies, 
including uranium enrichment, citing sovereign right, 
peaceful intent, and economic necessity.  Mark Fitzpatrick, a 
"think-tanker" and former DAS, warned of the hazards of an 
enrichment-capable Iran, raising Iran,s lack of 
transparency, military intent, and the exorbitant cost of the 
program.  The mainly student Moroccan audience displayed a 
slightly pro-Iranian tilt.  Questions focused on the double 
standard issue: that the U.S. and the IAEA hold Iran to a 
higher standard of scrutiny for its nuclear activities than 
they do for Israel.  End summary. 
 
-------------------------- 
Iran Nuclear Debate 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) On November 23, Poloff attended a public debate 
entitled "Nuclear Iran: War and Peace" held at the Institute 
for Graduate Studies in Management (HEM) in Rabat that warned 
of the hazards of an enrichment-capable Iran.  Professor 
Mohamed Reza-Djalili of the Graduate School of International 
Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, provided an overview of 
Iran,s geo-strategic position as context for the debate, 
while Professor Benmessaoud Abdelmoughit from Mohammed V 
University (in Rabat) moderated. 
 
-------------------------- 
Iran,s Case for Nuclear Capabilities 
-------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Iranian Ambassador Ahmadi,s presentation rested on 
several arguments, including Iran,s sovereign right to 
develop nuclear technologies (including uranium enrichment), 
its peaceful intent, transparency, and its need for nuclear 
energy.  Ahmadi said that Iran had no place for nuclear arms 
in its military doctrine and had always supported 
international initiatives to make the Middle East a nuclear 
weapon free zone.  He said that Iran had signed the NPT 
Additional Protocol; thus opening itself to unhindered UN 
inspections (to include 26 military facilities); turned over 
1000 pages of nuclear-program related documents to the UN; 
agreed to additional UN provisions concerning plutonium; and 
cooperated fully with the IAEA, selectively quoting from the 
latest IAEA report. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Ahmadi said that Iran would one day exhaust its 
petroleum resources and needed a long-term, environmentally 
sound energy source, adding that it needed the independent 
ability to enrich uranium because of a history of foreign 
interference.  Specifically, he complained that Western 
powers like the U.S. and Germany once supported Iran,s 
nuclear development until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. 
When this support ended, Ahmadi recalled, companies such as 
Siemens confiscated millions of dollars worth of 
Iranian-purchased nuclear-related equipment. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Ahmadi said that sanctions would only reinforce 
Iran,s determination to develop a completely self-sufficient 
nuclear program.  He complained that the U.S. and Israel were 
in the process of distorting international public opinion 
against Iran and accused these powers of exerting blatant 
interference within the IAEA, which portrayed Iran in a 
distorted light.  Ahmadi also called Israel a nuclear threat 
to the world and in contrast to Israel,s nuclear program, 
Iran,s has always been under IAEA supervision. 
 
-------------------------- 
Con-Iran Argument 
-------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Senior Fellow at the International Institute for 
Strategic Studies in London Mark Fitzgerald (a former DAS) 
prefaced his remarks by saying he did not represent the U.S. 
government.  Fitzpatrick said that the current impasse with 
Iran might be solved diplomatically but that he feared that 
war between the U.S. and Iran was possible.  He said that he 
believes that Iran is seeking nuclear technology, not for 
energy, but for military use.  Fitzpatrick underscored that 
the issue at hand is not about denying Iran access to nuclear 
energy but about concern about Iran enriching uranium on its 
own.  He said that that the Bush Administration has 
repeatedly expressed its desire to solve the impasse 
peacefully, but after five years of negotiations, Iran 
continues to remain uncooperative.  Underscoring this point, 
 
RABAT 00001818  002.4 OF 002 
 
 
Fitzpatrick said that the Bush administration changed policy 
in 2005, accepting Iran,s right to pursue nuclear energy, 
and worked with the P5 1 to offer Iran a package of credible 
incentives in June 2006 to curb enrichment, but to no avail. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Fitzpatrick then listed Iran,s 18-year track 
record of non-proliferation treaty violations, underscored in 
a 2003 IAEA announcement and subsequent referral to the UN 
Security Council.  He pointed out Iranian unwillingness to 
answer numerous questions pertaining to its nuclear program 
such as the Iranian military,s involvement in its nuclear 
program, evidence of plutonium 210 experiments, Iranian black 
market nuclear activities, and a decreasing knowledge of 
Iran,s nuclear activities had eroded international 
confidence in Iran,s assertion that its program was strictly 
for peaceful purposes.  In response to the sovereign right 
argument, Fitzpatrick said that sovereign rights can be 
denied, if there are international concerns about a 
country,s negative intntions, or postponed until such time 
as internatonal confidence is restored in a nation,s 
behavir. 
 
-------------------------- 
False Economic rgument 
-------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) itzpatrick called Iran,s economic justifications 
or enrichment capacity illogical, underscoring the 
exorbitant costs of the infrastructure and Iran, massive 
petroleum reserves.  He pointed out thenumerous sources of 
enriched uranium throughout he world, which neutralize any 
Iranian-targeted embargo. 
 
-------------------------- 
Cascading Effect 
------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) In response to a question fro the crowd which 
posited Iran,s right to nucleararms as a counter-balance to 
Israel,s nuclear caability, Fitzpatrick asserted that two 
wrongs do,t make a right.  He argued that other countriesin the region such as 
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turky will 
likely develop their own nuclear weapons apability if they 
know Iran had one. 
 
¶10.  (SB) Our gauge of applause from the mainly Moroccanstudent crowd indicated a slightly pro-Iranian til.  Several 
questions from te crowd focused on the alleged double 
standard issue: the notion that the U.S. and the IAEA hold 
Iran to a higher standard of scrutiny for its nuclear 
activities than they do for Israel.  Whenever the discussion 
focused solely on Iranian compliance with the IAEA, 
Fitzpatrick appeared to score points with the crowd. 
However, it was apparent that the pro-Iran argument received 
the most support from the crowd when the discussion shifted 
to Israel. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Comment:  The organizer of the debate shared with 
us his skeptism about Iran's arguements.  This debate, which 
was covered in the local press, was likely seen by the 
Iranians as a way to advance their public relations efforts 
in Morocco, an IAEA Board of Governors member.  While they 
may have had some sympathy from the crowd, we believe that 
the discussion did not win Iran much new popular support. 
End comment. 
 
 
***************************************** 
Visit Embassy Rabat's Classified Website; 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/rabat 
***************************************** 
 
Riley