Iranian Crisis: Progress, Problems
There was some good progress in Thursday's international negotiation sessions with Iran on its nuclear program. But anyone who imagines the problem is solved is quite delusional.
Let's focus first on the positive from Geneva.
Contrary to much posturing by Iran and its advocates around the world, the Tehran regime's envoy did discuss its very controversial nuclear program with the representatives of the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and the European Union.
President Barack Obama said that Iran has two weeks to follow through on beginning commitments made in Thursday's negotiations in Geneva.
Not only did Iran discuss its nuclear program -- and its previously secret nuclear facility next to a Revolutionary Guards military base outside Qom -- it agreed to prompt inspections of the underground facility by officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
This pleased IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei, who said during the week that Iran has been "outside the law" with regard to its nuclear program in general and especially this previously secret facility.
Iran had agreed to notify the IAEA when it begins construction of nuclear facilities, but then reneged on the agreement, as ElBaradei and others have lately noted.
And Iran's nuclear program is in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, as Russian President Dmitri Medvedev forcefully pointed out last weekend.
So on Thursday, Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors into the previously undisclosed nuclear facility.
Participants in Thursday's nuclear negotiations with Iran gathered in a villa in Geneva, Switzerland.
Iran also said that it would send nuclear materials needed for medical purposes to Russia and France for further nuclear enrichment. Which may establish a good precedent.
And Iran agreed to meet again this month to further discuss its nuclear program.
All this was in stark contrast to the long-range missile launches on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur and various denials of any intent to discuss its nuclear program, accompanied by red-hot rhetorical promises of the end of Israel, that emanated from the Iranian regime during the run-up to the sessions in Geneva.
Of course, as I noted in my preview piece here on the Huffington Post on Wednesday, Iran also put out some vague statements that suggested it would discuss its nuclear program, albeit in a backdoor way.
As it happens, the discussion came through the front door.
So all this is good progress, a promising sign, especially since peace is better than war, and that is likely what Iran would have gotten from Israel had it completely stonewalled in the Geneva talks.
Should nuclear negotiations with Iran fail, the Obama Administration plans strict sanctions on Iran's energy, telecommunications, and finance sectors.
Before proceeding further, let's look at why that might be.
Israel is a very small country. And its actions are at times quite problematic. As we see in the current negotiations over Palestine with the Obama Administration, which wants Israel to stop ongoing West Bank settlements by religious fundamentalists. Or anyone else, for that matter.
But, with regard to Israel, as the old joke goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Israel is the only nation with nuclear weapons in the Middle East. It has those weapons because it might otherwise be over-run by its many enemies in the region.
And Israelis believe that an Iran with nuclear weapons is a game-changer.
Iran, though oil-rich, is not a rich country. In large part because the Islamic fundamentalist revolution effected by the Ayatollah Khomeini caused a brain drain, especially amongst those with technical expertise. That's why Iran is vulnerable with regard to gasoline, much of which it must import due to its lack of refinery capacity.
But Iran is a populous country, with some 75 million people.
Israel is a small country, with only seven million people.
It's not likely that Israel would survive a nuclear war.
Which, while a prospect that I'm sure would make some readers very happy, is obviously unacceptable to any American administration.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad leads a crowd in a chant of "Death to Israel!"
Iran, whose leaders' rhetoric often suggests a messianic and apocalyptic point of view and encourages weekly chants of "Death to Israel," might survive a nuclear war.
So Israel is, not surprisingly, deeply opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power.
As are, actually, many Arab nations, which do not want to see an ascendant Persian power in the Middle East. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, some Arab nations will want them, too. And the world's biggest powder keg becomes all the more potentially explosive.
But let's go back to the positive.
After early signs of bombastic defiance, Iran is now openly discussing its nuclear program with the Western powers and Russia and China.
And Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, according to the Israeli press, is content for now for the diplomatic process to unfold.
But President Barack Obama, who has long advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, even though his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton and Republican general election opponent John McCain were harshly critical of him for it, says that his patience is not endless.
In fact, his patience seems to run out around New Year's Eve.
Which brings us to some problems. Keeping in mind that this negotiation, which Iran has delayed, as it was to have been completed by the end of September, is in a very early stage.
It's great that Iran is going to finally allow IAEA inspectors in to the Revolutionary Guards-protected facility outside Qom. But it isn't complete and is not in operation. We don't really know what's going on in that facility until it's operational.
It's also great that Iran has agreed to have further nuclear enrichment for medical isotopes done by Russia and France. But the details have to be worked out. And is that the extent of further enrichment activities?
Indeed, with regard to inspections, the previously secret facility outside Qom is only one. To be certain that Iran is not moving further towards developing nuclear weapons, Iran will have to take its leash off IAEA inspectors and allow anytime inspections in all its facilities.
And we will need to be sure that we are aware of all Iranian nuclear facilities.
Thursday's negotiations in Geneva were a promising start. But only that.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
""To possess "nuclear latency," then, is to have both the capacity to make and the will to use (despite what the Supreme Leader may say to the contrary) a nuclear weapon — in response to some trigger = geopolitical circumstance. I can think of several reasons why the West in general, and ISRAEL in particular would have various concerns about IRAN embracing this "JAPAN" doctrine. Unmentioned, but certainly implied is that to achieve this capability one must have the intellectual property to build and use/deliver a nuclear device. Even if the Iranian leaders were to comply with all the so-called "safeguards", the international regulations and inspections, etc of its physical works ~ and that's a big IF, Juan, seeing as how at least 50% of the Iranian people, themselves do not embrace the credibility of their own leaders ~ IRAN's nuclear weapons intellectual property would be transferable, even if their capacity were not used, and their devices did not "exist," thus. The challenge of "Non-Proliferation" nowadays is not just containment of brick -and- mortar works and the physical devices they do (or could, e.g. JAPAN, with latency) produce, but also about the dissemination of WMD assembly and delivery savoir faire, e.g. PAKISTAN ~ which is how we got here / why we're talking about IRAN today, n'est-ce pas? imho, "the JAPAN deterrence doctrine" is nothing more than latent MADness."
http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/iran-and-nuclear-latency.html
If what is said in the NYT and the Sunday Times, Israel is on to something: the Russians, in a reckless gambit, have provided nuclear technology and assistance to Iran. This fact, if it is a fact, and it appears to be highly likely, means that Iran is a much more immediate threat with Russian know-how. This indeed is a game-changer to be sure. The questions about which scientists, whether they are civilian or retired, whatever, this knowledge appears to have been accumulating for some time now, as evidenced by a recent trip to Russian by Netanyahu. Menedev and Putin are playing good cop, bad cop.
The implications are that the US will lead any attack, it would be by air and sea, and will depend upon decisions made by Russia regarding imposition of severe sanctions against Iran. Relations with the West will sour immediately and many other countries will be adversely affected. This will be the biggest Gordian Knot of international relations.
Obama is not too tied up with other issues and has exposed the games that were being played out behind the Bush administration's back. The Europeans are more convinced so the IAEA will have to reassess the threat level. The timing is interesting.
According to the AP, IAEA inspections are set for October 25th. So far, there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear material. The laptop computer emerged as a piece of evidence. The data inserted came from "Iranians" who smuggled it out to Germany and gave it to the CIA, like the now famous Curveball stories about WMD. I trust weapons inspectors rather than upon fanciful stories created in sveral countries.
None of us should rush to judgment as happened in the run up to the war in Iraq based on evidence of aluminum tubes, mobil weapons labs, and Yellowcake Documents about uranium in Niger, based on a statements from a guy by the name of "Curveball." Allow the process to go forward. This time around, we should listen to the inspectors, not the politicians who might benefit by more wars.
Only the Supreme Leader can start a war so the ramblings of Ahmadinejad should not be compared to other officials with the same title; their powers are quit different in Iran.
Even Michael Rubin does not advocate an Israeli strike:
AEI's Michael Rubin believes an Israeli strike alone won't be able to stop the regime's nuclear program and "an Israeli strike might buy time, but it would not buy enough time. The Islamic Republic would arise from any attack with greater lethality than before".
http://www.michaelrubin.org/6365/bad-options-on-iran
See William Bradley's Profile
I noticed a comment on my board by a pro-Iran person here that I want to deal with, but can't find it in the nested system here.
So I will say this.
If anyone is under the impression that any government on this planet possessing nuclear weapons is not willing to use them, I suggest that you find someone with whom to discuss your naivete.
Further, to imagine that Iran, with a public rhetoric suffused with the most acopalytic imagery of all major nations, would not use nuclear weapons, is simply delusional.
If Israel wants it's neighbours to refrain from trying to get a bomb, perhaps Israel should have refrained from (conventionally) carpet-bombing it's neighbours from beneath the shelter of it's own nuclear umbrella. At this point, the truth is that Israel's neighbours now need a bomb. No nuclear-armed nation will ever be bombed the way Israel recently bombed Lebannon, and for good reason.
See William Bradley's Profile
OK, you are opposed to Israel.
I think I get it ...
I like Israel just fine. My problem is with their behavior.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is more of a welfare state rather than an Islamic State (Ervand Abrahamian: Why the Islamic Republic Has Survived): Cut the welfare, topple the regime:
This should be required reading for Obama et al:
"The real answer [to the question of why the Islamic Republic of Iran has survived] lies not in religion, but in economic and social populism. By the early 1970s, Iran had produced a generation of radical intelligentsia that was revolutionary not only in its politics -- wanting to replace the monarchy with a republic -- but in its economic and social outlook. It wanted to transform the class structure root and branch. The trailblazer was a young intellectual named Ali Shariati, who did not live to see the revolution but whose teachings fueled the revolutionary movement. Inspired by the Algerians, Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh, Shariati spent his short life reinterpreting Shi'ism as a revolutionary ideology and synthesizing it with Marxism. He produced what can be termed a Shi'i version of Catholic liberation theology. His teachings struck a chord not just among college and high school students, but also among younger seminary students. These budding theologians could easily accept his teachings (except his occasional anti-clericalism). One theology student went so far as to describe Imam Husayn as an early Che Guevara and Karbala' as the Sierra Madre..."
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer250/abrahamian.html
See William Bradley's Profile
All these attacks on Iran get extremely tedious.
Just as all the attacks on Israel do.
This stuff leads nowhere.
Attack? Why do you see them as attack on Iran?? I'm not advocating bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities because it will not be advantageous and will only prolong the iron grip of IRI on its citizens and will also add to radicalization of Arab Islamists.
Regime change from within is the only way out, if you don't want the IRI to get the nukes and not use it.
"Squeezing the IRR out of the international banking system will force it to hand carry funds for its many nefarious activities and keeping an extra eye out for its carriers, is one way of weakening the IRR and empowering the enslaved democracy seeking Iranians.
Should for a change political farsightedness prevail, the seized assets which belong to the Iranian nation and been stolen by IRR could be used to help Iranians to rid the region and the world of the Islamist menace. "
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg308.htm
"Money laundering is the practice of disguising illegally obtained funds so that they seem legal. It is a crime in many jurisdictions with varying definitions. It is a key operation of the underground economy.
The other day in a The U.S, Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner attending the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) Meeting in Turkey said:
“We underscore our concerns over illicit finance emanating from Iran and the severe deficiencies in its regulatory regime. We emphasize FATF statements calling upon the international community to implement countermeasures to protect the international financial system from money laundering and terror financing risks emanating from Iran, and we urge all nations to respond appropriately. We further urge all nations to implement the financial provisions of UNSCR 1803 by exercising enhanced vigilance over the activities of their financial institutions with Iranian financial institutions – including branches and subsidiaries abroad – and particularly with respect to Bank Saderat and Bank Melli.”
That in tandem with what his deputy, Stuart Levy, first Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who held the same position in the previous administration, has quietly been doing is where the sane world lead by the U.S. has to focus more of its energies.
Cutting off the IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic from the international banking system, something which does not require IRR’s newest bestest friends’ approval, is a prudent first major step in confronting the gathering threat it poses. ..."
http://iranian.com/main/node/83052
N. Korea-zation of IRR
Living with nukish Islamist Rapist Republic is not going to be like Iraq where Fareed wholeheartedly supported its invasion and when it hit the fan changed his views.
What he is carelessly proposing is generations of Iranians living under sever sanctions while the IRR elite live the good life, very much like N. Korea. An IRR with nuke is a game changer for the worst and will have long-lasting destabilizing effect and not containable.
There is a third way to deal with the IRR before it gets its nuke, airtight sanctions and openly helping Iranians with material support to overthrow the Islamist menace.
Note: Fareed Zakaria is not exactly the most objective of pundits around:
a muslim who will like to see the entire region to go nucke in hopes of returning Jerusalme to its "rightful" owners.Zakaria was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India to a Muslim family. His father, Rafiq Zakaria, was a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and an Islamic scholar. His mother, Fatima Zakaria, was for a time the editor of the Sunday Times of India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria
Meanwhile Obama has plenty of money for building more Nuclear bombs
Obama Admin Expands Nuclear Weapons Production As the US pressures Iran, the news agency Inter Press Service reports the US is going ahead with a Bush administration program increasing nuclear weapons production. The “Complex Modernization” initiative would expand two existing nuclear sites to produce new bomb parts. The administration is proposing to build new plutonium pits at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico and expand enriched uranium processing at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/1/headlines#2
also, meanwhile:
"An Iranian assertion that construction on its second uranium-enrichment facility began only last year and further analysis of satellite photos of the site have cast fresh doubts on the Barack Obama administration's charge that the construction of the plant near the holy city of Qom involved a covert decision to violate Iran's obligations to report immediately to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on any decision to build a new facility. "
"If the satellite imagery for 2006, 2007 and 2008 shows that construction did not begin until after the Iranian withdrawal from its commitment to modified Code 3.1, it would provide new evidence that Iran intended to remain within the letter of its safeguards agreement and was not planning a covert enrichment facility. "
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ06Ak02.html
See William Bradley's Profile
I'm getting tired of looking at your incessant posts.
What is the meaning of this one, that Iran didn't violate the agreement it reneged on?
See William Bradley's Profile
Who did you vote for in the Democratic primaries last year?
Obviously not Obama.
Did you vote in the Democratic primaries?
It seems there are still some people out there - Fareed Zakaria, for example - who think that there are only two options when it comes to the Iranian crisis. I guess the days of the false choice, a hallmark of the previous US administration, are not dead and buried. Sigh.
According to Zakaria, we have two stark options staring us in the face: military action in Iran (presumably at the hands of the Israeli military) or learning to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If that is to be the choice, then I would wholeheartedly agree with Zakaria and choose a nuclear-armed Iran, hands down. Now, of course, that’s an easy choice for me to make from where I sit. I don’t live in a postage stamp sized country that may be within striking distance of Iranian missiles. But, I firmly believe that an Iran with nuclear weapons will be far easier for Israel to live with than would be the myriad of negative consequences that would occur in the wake of a military attack on Iran.
...continued...
On his CNN program GPS today, Fareed Zakaria suggests that a military strike on Iran would unite the country, including the reformers, not to mention much of the Arab world, behind the regime in Teheran. Of course, the price of oil would sky rocket and military action would, according to most experts, only delay - and not for very long - Iran’s nuclear weapons program, not stop it. And, if it was peaceful purposes the regime had in mind, a military strike would surely change that course, and fast!
On the other hand, a nuclear armed Iran would be isolated in the region...and in the world, more or less. The Arab nations would undoubtedly be more inclined to side with the US and Israel. Russia and China would do the same and Iran would find itself the center of attention and not the kind it wants. And, Israel’s nuclear arsenal would act as a strong deterrent...until we arrive at a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East!
I'm glad I came here for intellectual evaluation, thank you LizM. You and Mr. Bradley take foreign policy analysis to a whole new level, and in today's sloppy MSM, much appreciated.
whew!
See William Bradley's Profile
Yes, in Canada, that is an easy choice to make, Liz.
Well, I'm still not convinced that Israel - not to mention the rest of us - wouldn't be better off, in the long run, with that choice. I just don't see anything good coming out of the military option, any way you slice it.
Mr. Bradley, I just ran all the way over here after reading an article on Time.com: :"Two Arguments for What to Do in Afghanistan" http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927095,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
The authors Peter Bergen and Leslie H. Gelb mention the obvious two arguments for our role in Afghanistan (what we should or can do), but actually highlight the third option; and very well I thought.
I am curious what you (and others) think of the article's message, and if you believe Obama-Biden would follow the third argument. I appreciate your clarity of foreign policy.
The main problem I see with their argument is that the number of troops that would be required for a successful COIN operation is a number that US/NATO is not able, much less willing, to provide. We are talking about hundreds of thousands, not tens of thousands of troops that will be necessary to do what General McChrystal apparently wants to do.
And, on top of that, you have a governement in Kabul that isn't working and won't work so long as it is structured the way it is, to say nothing of the corruption that runs rampant through it.
Most importantly, the Afghan National Army is plagued with very serious problems that haven't been overcome in eight long years and the Afghan National Police make the army look like the ultimate fighting force!
Add to all of that the recent election that still remains unresolved and you have a recipe for disaster that can only be made worse by adding more troops, especially when everyone knows the number won't be nearly sufficient.
By the way, I'd like to know who is advocating such a simplistic strategy as a limited counterterrorism effort that is reliant mostly on drone attacks with a minimal military footprint and no effort to promote any sort of political accommodation that would involve all Afghans, including moderate elements of the Taliban. Certainly no one I know of is promoting such a strategy.
>>> By the way, I'd like to know who is advocating such a simplistic strategy as a limited counterterrorism effort that is reliant mostly on drone attacks with a minimal military footprint...
Perhaps the same who believe in unicorns and leprechans pootering rainbows...you know, strong advocates of the poppy fields. Fantasy can make even the harshest reality simple thus perceived as easily solved. ;-)
Which is why I come back here for information.
Thanks again LizM!
See William Bradley's Profile
Really?
Since the release of he November 2007 NIE saying with high confidence Iran has no active nuclear weapon program, NY Times has published a huge number of articles and opinion pieces asserting that weapon design is the EASIEST part of an atom bomb, enrichment and missile development being by far the HARDEST parts. Now, at the very start of a hopefully negotiated settlement NY Times cannot keep its shirt on about an unverfied conjecture that Iran may have the knowledge how to make bombs!
Even if you went by the alarmist headline, you would think this is supposed to be NEWS? Worthy of front page above the fold?
This from a country that ranks 25th in nonotechnology
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=31174
This from a country with stem cell research?
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/dangerous-ideas/2009/feb/26/an-unlikely-stem-cell-leader/
This is newsworthy from a country that manufatures fighter jets
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-20-voa20.cfm?moddate=2007-09-20
This from a country whose universities are on par with MIT, Stamford, and CalTech?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/151684/output/print
Read the NY Times article and you'll find they are not saying Iran is actually designing, but has the knowledge, and the capacity to. This is news? I think we are being played by the the same fear mongers who took us to Iraq.
I may have replied to the wrong post, whoops!
Just in case you're interested anyway, here's link to the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/middleeast/04nuke.html?scp=2&sq=iran&st=cse
See William Bradley's Profile
I like the 2007 NIE, as it ended the neocon plan to attack Iran for the benefit of the presidential election.
However, it never said that Iran won't build nuclear weapons.
Clinging to it on that basis is, let's say, not intelllectually serious ...
See William Bradley's Profile
What is the third argument, briefly, for the benefit of those here who aren't going to click somewhere else to read Les Gelb ...
Hey, did you read the latest Tom Friedma....just kidding. It was one to miss, actually, as it was rather depressing.
Interesting Admission:
Revolutionary Guards Chief: Elections Protests Biggest Threat To Islamic System
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/oct/1024.html
A lot of things Israel does is in direct violation of quite a few UN Security Council resolutions, I don't see any sanctions on Israel being imposed or advocated. And it's not as if Israel's violations don't affect anyone, it affects millions of Palestinians in ways that I need not elaborate on here. Doesn't this strike you in the least bit hypocritical? This is selective application of "principles", nothing else. The UN should be a non-political entity and should restrict itself to welfare and relief work; otherwise it is simply an imperialistic tool, only effective when and where the big powers want it to be.
Funny how it's always "evil Israel" as the excuse.
You're not concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons, or oppressing and murdering its own citizens like we just saw with the mass demonstrations after its own elections.
I doubt the Iranian leaders care much about Palestinians, either.
Hey, here's a thought. Maybe the extremists ought to stop the rocket firings and suicide bombings in Israel.
Ever think of that?
Thomas Fingar, who stepped down Dec. 1 from the post of deputy director of national intelligence and as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, said he also believed that Iran has not diverted low-enriched uranium produced at a facility at Natanz, 160 miles south of Tehran, to weapons use.
"I still stand by the judgments in that estimate," Mr. Fingar told a small group of reporters, referring to the November 2007 report. "We've had other teams look at this. Everyone who has, has affirmed the judgments we made."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/10/official-stands-by-iran-nuke-report/
I never said I am or am not concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. I am simply suggesting a double standard adopted here when it comes to that. If there is a principle, it should be applied to all, otherwise, please don't present it as a principle. If one country has nuclear weapons in a region, disallowing other countries in that same region is simply trying to maintain the dominance of that one country, which we all know is the top foreign policy goal for the US and some other European powers.
And if anyone actually thinks Iran will use nuclear weapons (if they had any) against Israel, they just like war hysteria. In this day and age, no one wants to use it; it's simply a deterrent. The only country that ever used it * cough * was able to use it because the other side didn't have any to retaliate with. So in this case, I would argue that Israel has more of an intention of using the nukes since it developed them first than Iran ever would.
Has the leader of Israel ever declared war on its own citizens as Khamenie did a few month ago?? Why do you think a murderous regime such as IRI could be trusted??
You seem to care more about the IRI than the Iranian people. Iranian are beginning to see this so-called nuclear right as an insurance policy for preserving the reign of terror of Khameni et al.
Why the IRI Should Not Get the Bomb
http://iranian.com/main/node/82718
2 Iranian dissidents say they were raped in captivity
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/02/iran.rape/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Authorities in Iran Arrest 18 Students
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03iran.html?_r=1
Notice the technique of the comment below, that Iran isn't diverting nuclear fuel for weapons use.
That's right, they're not. And when they do, they'll be making nuclear weapons.
This is such sophistry.
Uh, ISRAEL is worse, so Iran's not a problem.
Uh, they aren't making nuclear weapons yet, so they won't make nuclear weapons.
See William Bradley's Profile
If you actually believe that Iran is motivated by concern for the Palestinians, I have a non-existent bridge I would very much like to sell you.
Is Ahmadinejad trying to hide his Jewish roots by bashing Israel?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1118472.html
I sure don't believe much that's in the Telegraph. That's a right-wing rag.
Actually, this information was revealed by a Islamic clergy in Iran. I forgot his name. You can google the Persian google and find out the story in Persian newspapers. That is if you read Persian.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
