All of these points are of course entirely false. Miliband conveniently forgets that Iran's nuclear program was set up by the West, with the full assistance and encouragement of the same countries that are now demanded that Iran give up the program. There is zero evidence that Iran is making nuclear bombs, and the fact that Iran's many and repeated compromise offers that would have resolved any real fear on that point - including Iran's offer to operate its nuclear progra as a joint venture -- have been totally ignored (and now, including Iran's offer for a swap of uranium on its soil) only proves that the entire nuclear issue is pretextual, just as "WMDS in Iraq" was pretextual.
In fact, Miliband outright lies when he says "the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that it is unable to verify that Iran’s nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes." In fact the same IAEA has clearly stated -- repeatedly -- that it has no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and no nuclear material in Iran has been diverted for non-peaceful uses. As I have explained before, ad nauseum, the IAEA does not very that ANY country's nuclear program is "excusively peaceful" unless that country has signed and ratified the Additional Protocol -- which places Iran in the same category as most other countries in the world, though Iran (unlike US allies such as Egypt which was caught violating its own nuclear safeguards agreement and found with unexplained traces of highly-enriched uranium) had implemented the Additional Protocol for 2.5 years with no evidence of a weapons program found, and has offered to permanently implement it once its nuclear rights are recognized.
Miliband also outright lies when he says that "Iran offers no credible explanation for producing fissile material with a clear military application" since Iran has not produced such material if by that Miliband means weapons-grade uranium. Thus far Iran has only produced low-enriched uranium, which cannot be used to make bombs. Even the 19% enriched uranium Iran has produced for the medical research reactor at Tehran is still low-enriched uranium that cannot be used to make bombs. And, Iran would not have had to make that stuff either had the US not prevented Iran from acquiring the fuel for the medical research reactor, thus effectively holding hostage the 800,000 Iranian cancer patients who rely on medical isotopes that Iran was hoping to produce using that IAEA-monitored reactor that the US provided to Iran in the first place.
As for Iran's supposed failure to "come clean" on its nuclear program, here are the facts: as I have explained before, in August 2007 the IAEA and Iran came up with a list of outstanding issues that had to be resolved, and by Feb 2008 the IAEA reported that all of the matters on that list had been resolved, with no evidence of a nuclear weapons program found, and that there were no longer any outstanding issues. Regarding the Feb 2008 report, IAEA director ElBaradei specifically said:
[W]e have made quite good progress in clarifying the outstanding issues that had to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, with the exception of one issue, and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past. We have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran´s enrichment programme.
At this time, the US, just to ensure that Iran can't get a total clean bill of health, finally formally provided the IAEA with some of the "alleged studies" evidence from the "Laptop of death" that it had been shopping around for year -- which no one seriously believes to be anything other than forgeries. Iran has offered to address those "alleged studies" too, upon receiving the documentation it is supposed to refute, but the US refuses to provide it to Iran, again as I have explained before.
As for Israel seeing Iran as an "existential threat" -- two points: first of all, Israeli authorities dispute that point, and many quitely conceed that Iran is not an existential threat that it is made out to be by Israeli officials for their own domestic political purposes. Second, WHO CARES?? Since when has the world had to tippy-toe around and since when have countries had to give up their sovereign rights lest Israel feel "threatened"??? Incidentally, Israel's threats to attack Iran do not constitute "self-defense" by any stretch of the imagination. Lets not forget who has actually threatened whom with nuclear destruction.
As for Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons being a cause for regional proliferation, I have dismissed this fallacious scaremongering before:
There are some very basic problems with this theory. For one thing, it is highly ironic that Iran's mere capability to build nuclear weapons can supposedly spark this uncontrollable cascade of nuclear proliferation, and yet Israel's existing nuclear weapons are not believed to have this effect. Indeed, if we are to accept, as the fallacious argument assumes, that one country's nuclear capability will force other countries to acquire their own nuclear deterrent, then the real regional culprit for proliferation must be the original nuclear power in the region: Israel. Note also that similar predictions of regional arms races have not been made when, for example, Brazil recently acquired the same nuclear technology that Iran is seeking to develop.
Finally, the argument assumes that the other countries in the region aren't already working to develop their own nuclear programmes. There has been speculation about a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear link for many years. Several other nations, including Egypt and South Korea, have been caught conducting secret and potentially weapons-related experiments. In the cases of those two US allies, however, the IAEA settled for delivering a light slap on the wrist, there was no continued speculation about the existence of "secret" nuclear intentions, and there were no demands that they abandon nuclear technology permanently, as is demanded of Iran.
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Miliband: Middle East people respect us for having fulfilled our warning to Iraq
28.03.2010 19:39
Miliband: People in the Middle East respect us for having fulfilled our warning that it was Iraq’s last chance to avoid war
[propaganda alert]
Editorial note: In the absence of any meaningful dissent from the public, the two key figures of the British war establishment turned their “evidence” before the “Iraq Inquiry” into an opportunity to pave the ground for the next genocide.
__________________
1) David Miliband: People in the Middle East respect us for having fulfilled our warning that it was Iraq’s last chance to avoid war (8 March 2010)
relevant document:
2) Tony Blair: Iraq is better, our own security is better with Saddam out of power (28 January 2010)
from the archives:
3) David Miliband: Discussion about the Iraq war has clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world (February 2008)
___________________
“[W]e are seen to have played a part in freeing the country [i.e. Iraq] from a tyranny that is bitterly remembered.” […]
“I do think people in the [Middle East] region do respect those who are willing to see through what they say [...]. Even those who disagree with it [i.e. the war on Iraq] would say to me, ‘You have sent a message that, when you say something, you actually mean it, and if you say something is the last chance, it is a last chance’. ”
[…]
“I do not sit here today calling Iran a rogue state, but it is a state which is seeking to defy the rules of the international system […] That is clearly happening in respect of the Non-proliferation Treaty and Iran’s nuclear weapons programme..”
[UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, evidence before the Iraq Inquiry, 8 March 2010] [1]
“I’m asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, our own security is better with Saddam and his two sons out of power and out of office than in office, I indeed believe that we are, and I think in time to come, if Iraq becomes, as I hope and believe that it will, the country that its people want to see, then we can look back, and particularly our armed forces can look back, with an immense sense of pride and achievement in what they did.”
[…]
“[T]he reason why I take, and still take, a very hard line on Iran and nuclear weapons is not just because of nuclear proliferation, it is because the nature of the Iranian regime makes me even more worried about the prospect of them with a nuclear device.”
[former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, evidence before the Iraq Inquiry, 28 January 2010] [2]
_____________________
from the archives:
“I believe discussion about the Iraq war has clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world. I understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep concerns at the mistakes made. But my plea is that we do not let divisions over those conflicts obscure our national interest, never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy […]
In the 1990’s […] the left seemed conflicted between the desirability of the goal and its qualms about the use of military means. In fact, the goal of spreading democracy should be a great progressive project; the means need to combine soft and hard power.”
[UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, “Democratic Imperative” speech, Oxford University, 12 February 2008] [3]
_____________________
notes:
[1] Rt Hon David Miliband MP transcript
The Iraq Inquiry website, 8 March 2010
[2] Rt Hon Tony Blair transcript
The Iraq Inquiry website, 29 January 2010
[3] The democratic imperative
David Miliband website, 12 February 2008
_____________________
dandelion salad
Homepage:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/miliband-people-in-the-middle-east-respect-us-for-having-fulfilled-our-warning-that-it-was-iraq%E2%80%99s-last-ch
Miliband:Thesis of conspiracy against Iran is peddled vociferously by the regime
28.03.2010 19:53
Flashback:
UK Foreign Minister David Miliband: The long thesis of the conspiracy by foreign powers against Iran is peddled vociferously by the regime
[propaganda alert]
_________________
“Obviously the long thesis of the conspiracy by foreign powers against Iran is one that is deeply ingrained in the popular imagination and peddled vociferously by the regime. The demonisation of the West, the United States, the UK to some extent, has been a feature of the last 30 years.”
[UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, BBC Radio 4 interview, 16 June 2009] [1]
“I believe discussion about the Iraq war has clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world. I understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep concerns at the mistakes made. But my plea is that we do not let divisions over those conflicts obscure our national interest, never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy […]
In the 1990's […] the left seemed conflicted between the desirability of the goal and its qualms about the use of military means. In fact, the goal of spreading democracy should be a great progressive project; the means need to combine soft and hard power.”
[UK Foreign Minister David Miliband’s "Democratic Imperative" speech, Oxford University, 12 February 2008] [2]
“I think it's very important that there is a united front between the countries of Europe, America, Russia and China and countries of the Gulf in addressing the range of issues that are posed by the Iranian regime.”
[UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, Riyadh, 8 April 2009] [3]
“In the next year, the most pressing threat to global order […] comes from the actions of Iran.”
[UK Foreign Minister David Miliband’s 'Foundations of Freedom: the Promise of the New Multilateralism' speech, Hull, 21 November 2008] [4]
“Iranian nuclear programme [...] poses a threat not just to Israel but to the stability of the entire Middle East.”
[UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, Annual Lunch of Labour Friends of Israel speech, Whitehall, London, 4 November 2008] [5]
_________________
notes:
[1] Iran elections: David Miliband on the Today programme
Foreign and Common Wealth Office web site, 16 June 2009
[2] ‘The democratic imperative’
by UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, David Miliband’s personal website, 12 February 2008
[3] Britain calls for united front to deal with Iran
by Souhail Karam, Reuters, 8 April 2009
[4] Foundations of Freedom: the Promise of the New Multilateralism
by UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, Foreign and Common Wealth Office website, 21 November 2008
[5] 'Prospects in the Middle East'
by UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Foreign and Common Wealth Office website, 4 November 2008
_________________
related link:
The British Parliamentary Committe for Iran Freedom
_________________
dandelion salad
Homepage:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/uk-foreign-minister-david-miliband-the-long-thesis-of-the-conspiracy-by-foreign-powers-against-iran-is-peddled-vo
New World Order
28.03.2010 19:58
RT HON GORDON BROWN MP:
"Our position was not that. Our position was to support action so that the will of the international community, that Saddam Hussein disclose and dispose of weapons, be reinforced, and at the back of my mind was this sense that, if the international community did not act here, then the international community would find it difficult to gain credibility for acting in other areas, and this new world order that we were trying to create was being put at risk. So I go back to what I say is the wider argument about defying the will of the international community."
Chilcot Enquiry, 5 March 2010
nwo-watch
whatever
28.03.2010 23:14
Number 1, can be used a stepping stone towards weapons
Number 2, its a dangerous technology
Number 3, its bad for the environment and indeed climate change.
I really, really struggle to see any reason to support Iran in developer nuclear power, when i spend much of my time denouncing nuclear power. If you want to gamble with the environment then thats up to you.
steven
Point by point
29.03.2010 13:14
"that Iran is going nuclear, that a nuclear-armed Iran would cause proliferation in the region, that Israel sees Iran as an existential threat would "act in self-defense" against Iran, and that Iran has failed to "come clean" on its nuclear progam. All of these points are of course entirely false."
No they're not. Now - I'm totally opposed to military intervention in Iran, but all those statements appear true.
* "Iran is going nuclear"
Well, it's built a nuclear processing plant in the side of a mountain, and now admitted it, plus it has an existing nuclear programme. Though, if you'd bothered to read Miliband's article you'd have seen he also wrote it was true "that Iran is still some way from a nuclear capability".
* "a nuclear-armed Iran would cause proliferation in the region"
Of course it would - surely you'd agree that Israel would use in as an excuse?
* "that Israel sees Iran as an existential threat would "act in self-defense" against Iran"
Again - this isn't criticism of Iran - but of Israel and its disturbingly itchy trigger finger. And how is that deniable?
* "Iran has failed to "come clean" on its nuclear progam"
Iran built a secret nuclear enrichment plant in the side of a mountain. A plant with more centrifuges than would be needed for a "pilot" plant and less than would be needed for energy production. It failed to declare this and only admitted after Obama and co went public with it. You have to admit that it's not exactly been open on this.
Norvello