IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance
Oppose Neo-Fascism, Aggression | 17.11.2007 23:02 | Anti-militarism | World
Israel's 'pre-emptive' attacks on El Baredei BEFORE the report only proves that these Extremists know full well that there's nothing to the fearmongering they're again attempting to use to dupe people into supporting their planned Aggression.
Nonetheless, I grew dizzy last night, as I watched the media desperately spinning this into something it isn't.
Nonetheless, I grew dizzy last night, as I watched the media desperately spinning this into something it isn't.
"Only anti-Semites can't see the Iranian's new clothes, er, nukes!"
(ahem)
Many men who cheat on their wives assuage their feelings of guilt by convincing themselves that their wives are also having affairs, and deflect questions about their own actions by accusing their spouses of the ill behavior they themselves are guilty of.
Psychiatrists have a term for this called "Projection". And it happens to nations as well as people.
Israel knows it has been clandestinely building nuclear weapons of mass destruction underneath Dimona. Israel knows that the rest of the world knows (or at least suspects) Israel's immoral behavior. So Israel assuages its feelings of guilt by imagining that every other nation is doing the exact same thing, and hurling accusations at other countries of the crime Israel is itself guilty of.
Just as there is no amount of evidence that will convince the cheating husband that his wife is faithful, there is no amount of evidence that will convince Israel that Iraq or Iran is not building nuclear weapons. Indeed, the cheating husband will decide that the well-meaning friends supporting his wife are all part of a "plot" to deceive him, just as Israel, rather than facing the truth, accuses the IAEA of "failure" to see what Israel believes to be obvious.
Psychiatrists have a term for this as well called "Paranoid Delusion".
And from Paranoid Delusion to Psychotic Break is a short step indeed, and worrisome when the "patient" has nuclear weapons.
November 17, 2007
IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance
by Gordon Prather
Hallelujah! The International Atomic Energy Agency has, once again, verified "the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
It seems the Iranians continue to provide the IAEA access to all "special nuclear materials" – as proscribed by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – and all relevant nuclear material accountancy reports, as well as access to all activities involving said materials.
So, let the dancing in the streets commence!
But wait a minute.
Even though compliance by Iran is the principal and only conclusion of the current IAEA report [.pdf at link below] – entitled Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747 in the Islamic Republic of Iran – the neo-crazy media sycophants at the New York Times don't even mention it in their "report" on the IAEA report!
Well, if they don't even mention the IAEA report's principal conclusion – that Iran is compliant with its NPT Safeguards Agreement – what do Elaine Sciolino and William Broad report?
That Iran has not suspended its uranium-enrichment activies, "contrary to the decisions of the Security Council"?
No, no.
Quoth Sciolino-Broad:
"VIENNA, Nov. 15 — A new report says Iran has made new but incomplete disclosures about its past nuclear activities, missing a key deadline under an agreement with the IAEA."
Incomplete "disclosures"?
Missed a "key deadline"?
Wrong, wrong.
Nowhere in the IAEA report does Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei even suggest that Iran has missed a "key deadline" previously agreed to by Iran and the IAEA.
Furthermore, far from complaining about "incomplete disclosures," ElBaradei reported that Iran has provided "sufficient access" to individuals, and has "responded in a timely manner" to questions, and provided "clarifications and amplifications" on issues raised in the context of the "work plan."
ElBaradei even reports – not unfavorably – the Iranian-supplied justification for the secretive manner in which they have pursued the civilian nuclear power fuel-cycle which both the IAEA Statute and the NPT assure them is their inalienable right.
"According to Iran, in its early years, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) concluded a number of contracts with entities from France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America to enable it to acquire nuclear power and a wide range of related nuclear fuel cycle services, but after the 1979 revolution, these contracts with a total value of around $10 billion were not fulfilled.
"Iran noted that one of the contracts, signed in 1976, was for the development of a pilot plant for laser enrichment.
"Senior Iranian officials said that, in the mid-1980s, Iran started working with many countries to revitalize its nuclear programme to meet the State's growing energy needs. Taking advantage of investments already made, Iran said it focused its efforts initially on the completion of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, working with entities from, inter alia, Argentina, France, Germany and Spain, but without success.
"At that time, Iran also initiated efforts to acquire research reactors from Argentina, China, India and the former Soviet Union, but also without success.
"Parallel to the activities related to nuclear power plants, Iran started to build supporting infrastructure by establishing nuclear technology centres in Esfahan and Karaj.
"However, apart from uranium conversion technology acquired from an entity in China, Iran was not able to acquire other nuclear fuel cycle facilities or technology from abroad.
"As a result, according to Iran, a decision was made in the mid-1980s to acquire uranium enrichment technology on the black market."
Now, bear in mind that the IAEA's primary mission is to facilitate the fullest possible transfer – for peaceful purposes – of nuclear materials and technology from the "have" states to the "have-not" states. True, the IAEA is required to ensure – "insofar as it is able" – that the technology and materials so transferred are not diverted to a military purpose. But, Bonkers Bolton to the contrary, that's not IAEA's primary mission.
Furthermore, the "have" states are obligated under the IAEA Statute and under the NPT to facilitate that transfer – for peaceful purposes.
Hence, that history of Iran's attempts to obtain their "inalienable" rights under the IAEA Statute and NPT – if verified by the IAEA – constitutes an indictment of the IAEA's long-term abdication of its primary mission. To say nothing of an indictment of the perverse stewardship of "have" states, such as the United States.
So, how's ElBaradei's verification of Iran's story going?
"To assess the detailed information provided by Iran, the Agency held discussions with senior current and former Iranian officials.
"The Agency also examined supporting documentation, including Iranian legislation, contracts with foreign companies, agreements with other States and nuclear site surveys.
"Bearing in mind the long history and complexity of the program and the dual nature of enrichment technology, the Agency is not in a position, based on the information currently available to it, to draw conclusions about the original underlying nature of parts of the program.
"Further light may be shed on this question when other aspects of the work plan have been addressed and when the Agency has been able to verify the completeness of Iran's declarations."
Okay, Sciolino-Broad didn't even mention the principal conclusion of ElBaradei's report, nor did they appear to understand the potential dynamite of ElBaradei's ongoing assessment of the truth of Iran's allegations. So, what did Sciolino-Broad focus on.
"The agency's report also confirmed for the first time that Iran has now crossed the major milestone of putting 3,000 centrifuges into operation, a tenfold increase from just a year ago. In theory, that means that Iran could produce enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon within a year to 18 months."
In whose theory?
What neo-crazy crackpot told gullible [or complicit?] New York Times' reporters that gas centrifuges could produce uranium at all, much less produce weapons-grade almost pure Uranium-235?
Uranium-enrichment plants don't "produce" uranium, they "cast out" the Uranium-238 istopes from the uranium-hexafluoride fed them.
What ElBaradei "verified" was that Iran had finished installing eighteen 164-machine cascades and that uranium-hexafluoride had been fed into all 18 cascades. ElBaradei also reported that the "feed rate" as well as the enrichment level – both of which the IAEA "audits" – have remained low.
But Sciolino-Broad did get one thing right. ElBaradei did complain that Iran's "cooperation has been reactive, rather than proactive."
Whatever that means.
www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11923
Israel slams IAEA for 'failing to expose' Iran ambitions by Ron Bousso
Fri Nov 16
JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israel slammed the United Nations nuclear watchdog on Friday for failing to expose what it insisted was Iran's drive to acquire an atomic bomb in a key report on its archfoe's nuclear programme.
(Perhaps if the Extremists in the Israeli Government want to be taken seriously, then they should make some counter-argument, with evidence. It appears they can't, however, and are only 'acting out' in order to keep their deception going.)
The International Atomic Energy Agency report on Thursday said Iran has made some progress in revealing the extent of its nuclear programme, but that it is still defying UN demands to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment.
(Those US-sponsored resolutions were designed to leverage a justification for planned aggression, and investigations are currently underway into allegations that countries, like India, were coerced into voting for them. Nonetheless, the NPT overrides this.)
"The report fails to expose (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad's intentions that are well known to the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei," Deputy Foreign Minister Majalli Whbee told AFP.
Israel and the West fear that Iran's nuclear programme is cover for a drive to develop the bomb, but Tehran insists it is solely for peaceful ends.
(Actually, Israel and 'the West' don't believe this. Their politicians say it, but the people don't believe them, as they have absolutely no evidence, and everyone knows they're just trying to excuse their own plans for Aggression.)
In a statement, the Israeli foreign ministry said the report "confirms that Iran is committing an ongoing violation of the Security Council resolutions and continues to advance its nuclear programme."
"It must be stated that the agency says in its report that it is not in a situation in which it can carry out its mandate and reliably state the non-existence of undeclared nuclear activites and/or materials by Iran," it said.
(The report doesn't actually say that.)
The IAEA report, which said that Iran's "cooperation has been reactive rather than pro-active," allows the Islamic republic to buy time in its drive to produce a nuclear weapon, Whbee charged.
(Note the deceptive construction of that sentence. The report didn't say this, the Israeli minister did. Iran has been "reactive" because it is under attack from Extremists in Israel and the US, whose demands keep shifting. They did the same thing in attempting to feign justification for a planned war against Iraq.)
"ElBaradei is aware of Iran's selective cooperation. He knows the truth that it wants to carry on enriching uranium," he said.
(As is its right ...)
"Any extension of time that the international community gives Iran will allow it more time to develop a bomb. The international community must act to make Iran stop its programme and abide by the UN Security Council resolutions."
(The US-sponsored resolutions violate Iran's NPT rights. And Israel's statements actually highlight the true purpose of these resolutions.)
Thursday's report acknowledged that Iran had provided "sufficient access" and responded in a "timely manner" to questions and requests for clarifications.
Whbee said the report could act as a milestone on the road to a third round of Security Council sanctions against Tehran, adding that "the world must toughen the sanctions and not accept Iran's selective cooperation."
(The report actually kills the argument for further sanctions - and aggression - against Iran.)
Washington wants further UN sanctions against Tehran. Britain and France have said they need more time to study the IAEA report, but both urged Iran to cooperate fully with the international community.
Whbee joined a growing chorus of senior Israeli officials who have called for the IAEA chief to step down.
(Because he's destroyed their only argument for Military Aggression against Iran, while they view their plot against the country as inevitable.)
"ElBaradei is hiding his head in the sand and exposing the region and the entire world to a real threat. This raises many questions," he said.
Israel, which belongs to the UN nuclear watchdog but is not a signatory to its key Non-Proliferation Treaty, is widely considered to have the Middle East's sole -- if undeclared -- nuclear arsenal.
It considers Iran its chief enemy after repeated statements by Ahmadinejad that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map.
(However, these statements were never made, and the mistranslation which led to this meme was corrected the week it was made. Repeating this false statement is an intentional LIE. This is about oil, geopolitics, and the regional influence of Israel and the United States.)
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071116/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsiaeaisra
Israeli Extremists Prep for Nuclear Strike on Iran
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7903/index.php
Israel, US Joint Plotting Against Iran, Attack ElBaredei
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7888/index.php
(ahem)
Many men who cheat on their wives assuage their feelings of guilt by convincing themselves that their wives are also having affairs, and deflect questions about their own actions by accusing their spouses of the ill behavior they themselves are guilty of.
Psychiatrists have a term for this called "Projection". And it happens to nations as well as people.
Israel knows it has been clandestinely building nuclear weapons of mass destruction underneath Dimona. Israel knows that the rest of the world knows (or at least suspects) Israel's immoral behavior. So Israel assuages its feelings of guilt by imagining that every other nation is doing the exact same thing, and hurling accusations at other countries of the crime Israel is itself guilty of.
Just as there is no amount of evidence that will convince the cheating husband that his wife is faithful, there is no amount of evidence that will convince Israel that Iraq or Iran is not building nuclear weapons. Indeed, the cheating husband will decide that the well-meaning friends supporting his wife are all part of a "plot" to deceive him, just as Israel, rather than facing the truth, accuses the IAEA of "failure" to see what Israel believes to be obvious.
Psychiatrists have a term for this as well called "Paranoid Delusion".
And from Paranoid Delusion to Psychotic Break is a short step indeed, and worrisome when the "patient" has nuclear weapons.
November 17, 2007
IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance
by Gordon Prather
Hallelujah! The International Atomic Energy Agency has, once again, verified "the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
It seems the Iranians continue to provide the IAEA access to all "special nuclear materials" – as proscribed by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – and all relevant nuclear material accountancy reports, as well as access to all activities involving said materials.
So, let the dancing in the streets commence!
But wait a minute.
Even though compliance by Iran is the principal and only conclusion of the current IAEA report [.pdf at link below] – entitled Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747 in the Islamic Republic of Iran – the neo-crazy media sycophants at the New York Times don't even mention it in their "report" on the IAEA report!
Well, if they don't even mention the IAEA report's principal conclusion – that Iran is compliant with its NPT Safeguards Agreement – what do Elaine Sciolino and William Broad report?
That Iran has not suspended its uranium-enrichment activies, "contrary to the decisions of the Security Council"?
No, no.
Quoth Sciolino-Broad:
"VIENNA, Nov. 15 — A new report says Iran has made new but incomplete disclosures about its past nuclear activities, missing a key deadline under an agreement with the IAEA."
Incomplete "disclosures"?
Missed a "key deadline"?
Wrong, wrong.
Nowhere in the IAEA report does Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei even suggest that Iran has missed a "key deadline" previously agreed to by Iran and the IAEA.
Furthermore, far from complaining about "incomplete disclosures," ElBaradei reported that Iran has provided "sufficient access" to individuals, and has "responded in a timely manner" to questions, and provided "clarifications and amplifications" on issues raised in the context of the "work plan."
ElBaradei even reports – not unfavorably – the Iranian-supplied justification for the secretive manner in which they have pursued the civilian nuclear power fuel-cycle which both the IAEA Statute and the NPT assure them is their inalienable right.
"According to Iran, in its early years, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) concluded a number of contracts with entities from France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America to enable it to acquire nuclear power and a wide range of related nuclear fuel cycle services, but after the 1979 revolution, these contracts with a total value of around $10 billion were not fulfilled.
"Iran noted that one of the contracts, signed in 1976, was for the development of a pilot plant for laser enrichment.
"Senior Iranian officials said that, in the mid-1980s, Iran started working with many countries to revitalize its nuclear programme to meet the State's growing energy needs. Taking advantage of investments already made, Iran said it focused its efforts initially on the completion of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, working with entities from, inter alia, Argentina, France, Germany and Spain, but without success.
"At that time, Iran also initiated efforts to acquire research reactors from Argentina, China, India and the former Soviet Union, but also without success.
"Parallel to the activities related to nuclear power plants, Iran started to build supporting infrastructure by establishing nuclear technology centres in Esfahan and Karaj.
"However, apart from uranium conversion technology acquired from an entity in China, Iran was not able to acquire other nuclear fuel cycle facilities or technology from abroad.
"As a result, according to Iran, a decision was made in the mid-1980s to acquire uranium enrichment technology on the black market."
Now, bear in mind that the IAEA's primary mission is to facilitate the fullest possible transfer – for peaceful purposes – of nuclear materials and technology from the "have" states to the "have-not" states. True, the IAEA is required to ensure – "insofar as it is able" – that the technology and materials so transferred are not diverted to a military purpose. But, Bonkers Bolton to the contrary, that's not IAEA's primary mission.
Furthermore, the "have" states are obligated under the IAEA Statute and under the NPT to facilitate that transfer – for peaceful purposes.
Hence, that history of Iran's attempts to obtain their "inalienable" rights under the IAEA Statute and NPT – if verified by the IAEA – constitutes an indictment of the IAEA's long-term abdication of its primary mission. To say nothing of an indictment of the perverse stewardship of "have" states, such as the United States.
So, how's ElBaradei's verification of Iran's story going?
"To assess the detailed information provided by Iran, the Agency held discussions with senior current and former Iranian officials.
"The Agency also examined supporting documentation, including Iranian legislation, contracts with foreign companies, agreements with other States and nuclear site surveys.
"Bearing in mind the long history and complexity of the program and the dual nature of enrichment technology, the Agency is not in a position, based on the information currently available to it, to draw conclusions about the original underlying nature of parts of the program.
"Further light may be shed on this question when other aspects of the work plan have been addressed and when the Agency has been able to verify the completeness of Iran's declarations."
Okay, Sciolino-Broad didn't even mention the principal conclusion of ElBaradei's report, nor did they appear to understand the potential dynamite of ElBaradei's ongoing assessment of the truth of Iran's allegations. So, what did Sciolino-Broad focus on.
"The agency's report also confirmed for the first time that Iran has now crossed the major milestone of putting 3,000 centrifuges into operation, a tenfold increase from just a year ago. In theory, that means that Iran could produce enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon within a year to 18 months."
In whose theory?
What neo-crazy crackpot told gullible [or complicit?] New York Times' reporters that gas centrifuges could produce uranium at all, much less produce weapons-grade almost pure Uranium-235?
Uranium-enrichment plants don't "produce" uranium, they "cast out" the Uranium-238 istopes from the uranium-hexafluoride fed them.
What ElBaradei "verified" was that Iran had finished installing eighteen 164-machine cascades and that uranium-hexafluoride had been fed into all 18 cascades. ElBaradei also reported that the "feed rate" as well as the enrichment level – both of which the IAEA "audits" – have remained low.
But Sciolino-Broad did get one thing right. ElBaradei did complain that Iran's "cooperation has been reactive, rather than proactive."
Whatever that means.
www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11923
Israel slams IAEA for 'failing to expose' Iran ambitions by Ron Bousso
Fri Nov 16
JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israel slammed the United Nations nuclear watchdog on Friday for failing to expose what it insisted was Iran's drive to acquire an atomic bomb in a key report on its archfoe's nuclear programme.
(Perhaps if the Extremists in the Israeli Government want to be taken seriously, then they should make some counter-argument, with evidence. It appears they can't, however, and are only 'acting out' in order to keep their deception going.)
The International Atomic Energy Agency report on Thursday said Iran has made some progress in revealing the extent of its nuclear programme, but that it is still defying UN demands to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment.
(Those US-sponsored resolutions were designed to leverage a justification for planned aggression, and investigations are currently underway into allegations that countries, like India, were coerced into voting for them. Nonetheless, the NPT overrides this.)
"The report fails to expose (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad's intentions that are well known to the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei," Deputy Foreign Minister Majalli Whbee told AFP.
Israel and the West fear that Iran's nuclear programme is cover for a drive to develop the bomb, but Tehran insists it is solely for peaceful ends.
(Actually, Israel and 'the West' don't believe this. Their politicians say it, but the people don't believe them, as they have absolutely no evidence, and everyone knows they're just trying to excuse their own plans for Aggression.)
In a statement, the Israeli foreign ministry said the report "confirms that Iran is committing an ongoing violation of the Security Council resolutions and continues to advance its nuclear programme."
"It must be stated that the agency says in its report that it is not in a situation in which it can carry out its mandate and reliably state the non-existence of undeclared nuclear activites and/or materials by Iran," it said.
(The report doesn't actually say that.)
The IAEA report, which said that Iran's "cooperation has been reactive rather than pro-active," allows the Islamic republic to buy time in its drive to produce a nuclear weapon, Whbee charged.
(Note the deceptive construction of that sentence. The report didn't say this, the Israeli minister did. Iran has been "reactive" because it is under attack from Extremists in Israel and the US, whose demands keep shifting. They did the same thing in attempting to feign justification for a planned war against Iraq.)
"ElBaradei is aware of Iran's selective cooperation. He knows the truth that it wants to carry on enriching uranium," he said.
(As is its right ...)
"Any extension of time that the international community gives Iran will allow it more time to develop a bomb. The international community must act to make Iran stop its programme and abide by the UN Security Council resolutions."
(The US-sponsored resolutions violate Iran's NPT rights. And Israel's statements actually highlight the true purpose of these resolutions.)
Thursday's report acknowledged that Iran had provided "sufficient access" and responded in a "timely manner" to questions and requests for clarifications.
Whbee said the report could act as a milestone on the road to a third round of Security Council sanctions against Tehran, adding that "the world must toughen the sanctions and not accept Iran's selective cooperation."
(The report actually kills the argument for further sanctions - and aggression - against Iran.)
Washington wants further UN sanctions against Tehran. Britain and France have said they need more time to study the IAEA report, but both urged Iran to cooperate fully with the international community.
Whbee joined a growing chorus of senior Israeli officials who have called for the IAEA chief to step down.
(Because he's destroyed their only argument for Military Aggression against Iran, while they view their plot against the country as inevitable.)
"ElBaradei is hiding his head in the sand and exposing the region and the entire world to a real threat. This raises many questions," he said.
Israel, which belongs to the UN nuclear watchdog but is not a signatory to its key Non-Proliferation Treaty, is widely considered to have the Middle East's sole -- if undeclared -- nuclear arsenal.
It considers Iran its chief enemy after repeated statements by Ahmadinejad that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map.
(However, these statements were never made, and the mistranslation which led to this meme was corrected the week it was made. Repeating this false statement is an intentional LIE. This is about oil, geopolitics, and the regional influence of Israel and the United States.)
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071116/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsiaeaisra
Israeli Extremists Prep for Nuclear Strike on Iran
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Israel, US Joint Plotting Against Iran, Attack ElBaredei
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Oppose Neo-Fascism, Aggression
Comments
Hide the following comment
Israel's Extremists Gnash Their Teeth
18.11.2007 22:21
By YAAKOV KATZ
Israel dismissed a report issued by the UN nuclear watchdog agency on Thursday as "unacceptable," claiming it was further proof that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei was pro-Iranian.
(As opposed to Anti-Iranian, as these Israeli Extremists are? Such Disinformation is utilized by cowards who cannot support their own position.)
The long-awaited IAEA report released on Thursday found Iran to be generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history, but warned that its knowledge of Teheran's present atomic work was shrinking.
The report also confirmed that Teheran continued to defy the UN Security Council by ignoring its repeated demands to freeze uranium enrichment - a potential pathway to nuclear arms.
(And nuclear power ... See comments within the original post.)
"This report is unacceptable," Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman told The Jerusalem Post. "This is further proof of ElBaradei's one-sided and pro-Iranian position."
(Personal attacks is all this racist has. He's just angry because the UN has exposed the LIES these Extremists are trying to peddle, in order to feign justification for a war.)
Last week, Lieberman said that ElBaradei was "part of the problem, not part of the solution." Despite the dissatisfaction with the report, Lieberman said that Israel still believed it was possible to impose further sanctions on Iran in light of the Islamic Republic's refusal to suspend its enrichment of uranium.
(But Russia and China have both said they would veto any such effort, which is really about leveraging conditions for war, so that isn't likely. Other countries are wary of signing on, as the evidence is against this, and the Extremists' plot is well-known.)
Reflecting that stance, Britain's Foreign Office said in a statement issued shortly after the report that "as the IAEA report now shows that Iran has still not addressed several issues about its nuclear program, we will pursue further Security Council and EU sanctions."
(Which is interesting, because this followed closely on the heels of pressure from the US on Brown, who hadn't said anything about Iran.)
"If Iran wants to restore trust in its program it must come clean on all outstanding issues without delay," the statement said. It also said Teheran must restore broader and stronger inspection rights to IAEA teams and suspend its enrichment activities to avoid such penalties.
The White House, too, said it would continue to push for a third round of sanctions against Iran despite the report. "We believe that selective cooperation is not good enough," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
(There's that term again. It's like they all wrote these Talking Points together ...)
Lieberman said that the report made it clear that Iran was still hiding large parts of its nuclear program but took ElBaradei to task for writing in the report that Iran was cooperating and for not recommending a new round of sanctions.
(He also called Israel's plot for war "an Act of Madness". Why is Lieberman, a man who supports a 'final solution' to the Palestinians, a part of the Government anyway?)
"What does it mean that they are cooperating?" asked Lieberman, whose Strategic Affairs Ministry is tasked with formulating Israeli policy vis-à-vis Iran. "The moment that they continue to enrich uranium there is nothing to talk about."
Lieberman said he was hopeful that the United States and France would continue to work to impose new sanctions despite the conciliatory report. He also expressed hope that a report on Iran's nuclear program being compiled by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana would be "more balanced."
(In other words, "fix the facts" ...)
A senior Israeli official reacted by saying "as expected, this was a mild report."
(As expected, this recation proves that this has little to do with any nuclear program, and everything to so with an Act of Aggression these whack-jobs view as an inevitability, which is about geostrategy, oil, elminating another ally of the Palestinians, and increasing Israel/America's 'Regional Influence'.)
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said: "It is clear that the Iranians are in continuing violation of their international obligations under two unanimous UN Security Council resolutions. The international community must act now and send a clear message to the leadership in Teheran that this is unacceptable and the consequences for continuing violations will be forthcoming."
(Israel has violated Security Council Resolutions just today, in violating the sovereignty of Lebanon, which they've done several times now.)
Israeli officials have publicly criticized ElBaradei over recent weeks, fearing that his report would play into Iranian hands by allowing them more time to push ahead with their nuclear program. Jerusalem feared that any report that praised Iranian cooperation would jeopardize efforts to galvanize support for a third round of sanctions.
(And their plans for War. They didn't 'criticize' ElBaredei, they attacked him. There is a difference.)
Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz noted on Wednesday that Russia and China were looking for an excuse to avoid further sanctions.
Publication of the report emboldened Iran, with the country's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili saying that it proved accusations that Teheran was pursuing nuclear weapons were baseless and that new sanctions against the country would be wrong.
(That's an interesting phrase ... What it actually did was prove that Israel and the US are attempting to create the illusion of a crisis where none exists.)
He said Teheran has answered all the questions by the agency and made "good progress" in cooperating with it. In light of the IAEA report, "many accusations are now baseless," Jalili said, referring to US claims that Teheran was seeking to build nuclear weapons. "Those powers who base their accusations on this I hope will reconsider what they say."
Jalili insisted Iran had an irrefutable right to its nuclear program. "Iran has shown it is working within the framework of the law but at the same time, we want our [nuclear] rights," Jalili said. "We have done everything to have a peaceful nuclear program."
Much of the 10-page report made available to the press focused on the history of Iran's black-market procurements and past development of its enrichment technology - and the agency appeared to be giving Teheran a pass on that issue, repeatedly saying it concludes that "Iran's statements are consistent with...information available to the agency."
(And because that work was undertaken due to the history of US/CIA intervention in the country's politics, again because of oil and geostrategy.)
At the same time, a senior UN official acknowledged that the agency remained in the dark about Iran's present work with new and more modern enrichment technologies that would allow it to enrich uranium at far greater speed and volume than with the outmoded machines the agency is monitoring.
(Hmmmm ... I wonder who this 'senior official' is, since he's the only person not identified in this article.)
Mark Weiss and AP contributed to this report.
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127517568&pagename=JPost/JPArtic
From a Saturday, November 17, 2007 entry on Informed Comment Global Affairs, a group blog run by Juan Cole, Manan Ahmed, Farideh Farhi, and Barnett R. Rubin
It is always interesting to read the actual text of reports issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding Iran not only because of what they reveal about Iran’s program, but also because of the interestingly partial way various news organizations and governments end up interpreting or representing the report to audiences they are sure will not read the reports themselves.
The IAEA report that just came out regarding Iran was much anticipated because of the agreement on a work plan between the IAEA and Iran regarding a time frame for the resolution of “outstanding issues” that had remained regarding Iran’s past activities. Based on this agreement Iran was expected to cooperate and effectively divulge information that would allow the IAEA to assess whether or not Iran has come clean on its past activities. This process is still ongoing but the November report was expected to give a hint about the extent of Iranian cooperation.
The IAEA and its director Mohammad ElBaradei were heavily criticized by the United States and several European governments for the work plan because of its focus on Iran’s past activities or breaches and the possibility of the resolution of the questions regarding these past activities undercutting the force of the UN sanctions regime that demands suspension of Iran’s enrichment program. As such, the report issued on November 15 had to be, and is, very clear that “contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities.”
The IAEA report also states that “since early 2006 [this is when Iran suspended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol due to UN Security Council initiated sanctions against Iran], the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, pursuant the Additional Protocol and as a transparency measure. As result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current programme is diminishing.”
On the remaining major issues relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear program, however, the report paints a cooperative picture of Iran and states: “The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided on the declared past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programmes are consistent with its findings. The Agency will, however, continue to seek corroboration and is continuing to verify the completeness of Iran’s declarations.” This is not a statement of closure of the issue as the Iranian leaders are claiming but is an important steep forward. In fact, the language of Iran providing information that is “consistent with the Agency’s findings” or “information available to the Agency” from other sources is repeated several times in the report regarding a variety of issues.
Also positively reported is Iran’s level of cooperation. The report explicitly states that “Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan. However its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive.” This I take to mean that Iran has responded to questions and cooperated in specific areas when asked but not before. The IAEA clearly wants Iran to engage in “active cooperation and full transparency” in a proactive manner but the report does not state that Iran’s reactive approach has led to lack of cooperation as agreed upon in the work plan.
Finally, the IAEA is also quite explicit that “the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities.” But, as mentioned above, the Agency wants Iran to implement the Additional Protocol to prevent its “diminishing” knowledge of Iran’s current program (this is by the way something Iran has said, at least in the past, that it will do if Iran’s nuclear dossier returns to the IAEA).
So a close reading of the report suggests that the IAEA is unhappy with Iran’s continuation of enrichment (because it is contrary to the Security Council decisions) and would like Iran to voluntarily implement the Additional Protocol as it did in the past. At the same time, the report suggests good progress on the issue of Iran’s past activities. It also reveals no evidence of diversion to a weapons program despite “a total of seven unannounced inspections” carried out which are beyond Iran’s current NPT obligations (as I understand it, IAEA inspectors have been issued multiple entry visas to enter Iran as they wish).
I lay the report out in detail because I think it is important as a backdrop to the hesitance shown by Russia and China in approving another set of sanctions against Iran before IAEA’s engagement with Iran through the work plan is finished.
But as I said above it is also interesting and quite revealing to see how the report itself is reported. In Iran, the statements about non-diversion and consistency with the Agency’s findings are trumpeted by government officials as an affirmation of Iran’s righteousness. The United States government, on the other hand, has found the report inadequate and in fact has immediately called for a Security Council meeting to discuss a new round of sanctions (a meeting China reportedly initially refused to attend but has now reluctantly agreed to do so after Thanksgiving)
These are expected governmental positions. Perhaps also not too unexpectedly, the American newspapers and news agencies also do seem a bit too willing to tow the U.S. government line. The New York Times, in a piece entitled “Report Raises New Doubts on Iran’s Nuclear Program,” reports that the Agency “said in a report on Thursday that Iran had made new but incomplete disclosures about its past nuclear activities, missing a critical deadline under an agreement with the agency and virtually assuring a new push by the United States to impose stricter international sanctions.” No where in text of this piece, however, there is anything about what these “new doubts” are or where exactly the report has said that a critical deadline has been passed. Also not referred to are the explicit statements about non-diversion of nuclear material and consistency with the Agency’s findings.
The piece goes on to say, “the report made clear that even while providing some answers, Iran has continued to shield many aspects of its nuclear program.” The report says no such thing but the NYT piece takes the report’s reference to Iran’s “reactive rather than proactive” cooperation, mentioned in the paragraph about Iran’s “sufficient” and “timely” cooperation with the work plan, along with the suspension of the Additional Protocol (calling it instead “restrictions Iran has placed on inspectors”) as the reasons for why the “agency’s understanding of the full scope of Iran’s nuclear program is diminishing” and represents this as a "shielding" by Iran.
The Associated Press’ heading is “IAEA: Iran Not Open About Nuke Program,” while the opening of the piece is: “The U.S. called for new sanctions against Iran after a U.N. report Thursday that said the Tehran regime has been generally truthful about key aspects of its past nuclear activities, but is continuing to enrich uranium.”
After several changes in the Internet versions, the Washington Post’s heading ended up slightly less provocative (“U.S. to Seek New Sanctions against Iran: UN Report Faults Tehran’s Input on Nuclear Program”). But the text begins by saying “The Bush administration plans to push for new sanctions against Iran after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported yesterday that Tehran is providing "diminishing" information about its controversial nuclear program, U.S. officials said. In a critically timed assessment, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran provided "timely" and helpful new information on a secret program that became public in 2002, but that it did not fully answer questions or allow full access to Iranian personnel. Iran is even less cooperative on its current program, the IAEA reported.” This reporting is not only flatly wrong regarding what the report said about full access to Iranian personnel but also completely mum, like the reporting from AP and NYT, about the reasons for the “diminishing” information (the suspension of the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol which was instigated by the Security Council action).
If you are wondering if there is reporting that accurately uses the language used by the IAEA findings, I think the BBC piece entitled “Mixed UN Nuclear Report for Iran,” although short and still mum on the reasons for why the Additional Protocol is no longer voluntarily implemented by Iran, gives a relatively accurate description of the issues involved. So it can be done! Why it is not, make a guess….
www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/17/18461783.php
Here is a link to the full report:
www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranIAEAreportNov15.pdf
Lies to War