Russia and China have both opposed the imposition of a new round of UN sanctions. Beijing declared on Thursday that it supported Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear-energy program and preferred to see Iran answer questions about its nuclear ambitions through negotiations with the IAEA. US ambassador Khalilzad responded by declaring: “I don’t think China would want to be in a position to cause a failure of diplomacy to deal with this issue.” In the lexicon of the Bush administration, “a failure of diplomacy” has only one meaning—a turn to military force.

From the outset, the White House has bitterly criticised the “work plan” agreed in August between the IAEA and Tehran to answer all remaining questions about Iran’s nuclear programs. The US registered a formal complaint against IAEA chairman Mohamed ElBaradei for allegedly exceeding his authority, but bided its time after Russia and China refused to immediately agree to a new UN resolution. The reason for the US opposition is obvious: if the outstanding issues were to be resolved, the formal case against Iran—that it has previously failed to fully disclose its nuclear activities—would collapse.

The lack of objective evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program has, however, not prevented the Bush administration from ramping up its propaganda campaign against Tehran. Bush officials routinely equate the “capacity” to make a nuclear weapon with Iran’s progress in uranium enrichment at its Natanz plant—an activity that it permitted under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran is a signatory. Moreover, if one were to follow Bush’s declaration that Iran must be denied the “knowledge” to make an atomic bomb then all nuclear research and activity would have to be banned.

The superheated rhetoric from the White House finds its reflection in the international media with the London-based Times, for instance, responding to the IAEA report with a headline “Iran could build atom bomb within one year, says nuclear watchdog”. In fact, the IAEA made no such statement, but simply reported that Tehran had 3,000 gas centrifuges operating at its Natanz facility. This figure—the estimated number of centrifuges needed to produce enough highly-enriched uranium for one bomb—has increasingly been promoted by the US and Israel as the “red-line” for action against Iran.

In recent comments to Le Monde, IAEA director ElBaradei declared that Iran was three to eight years away from being able to produce a bomb and constituted no immediate threat. Even ElBaradei’s estimate assumes that Iran switched its Natanz plant to the production of highly-enriched uranium. Currently the facility is subject to IAEA monitoring which shows that Iran is only producing the low-enriched uranium required for power reactor fuel.

Selective leaking

This week’s IAEA report will only be released publicly after a meeting of the IAEA board of governors due next week. The Bush administration has nevertheless seized on parts of the report to repeat its condemnations of Iran and demand a complete shutdown of its nuclear facilities. The US envoy to the IAEA, Greg Schulte, criticised Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA as “selective and incomplete”, adding: “Iran has not met the world’s expectation that it would disclose information on both its current and past programs.”

In its article entitled “UN losing grip on Iran nuke plan”, CNN, which received a leaked copy of the report, highlighted the IAEA’s remark that since early 2006 it “has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing” and that its “knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear program is diminishing.” It also cited the IAEA’s contention that Iran’s “cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive. As previously stated, Iran’s active cooperation and full transparency are indispensable for full and prompt implementation of the work plan.”

The reference to “diminishing” knowledge and the call for greater cooperation are hardly new. Similar comments have been inserted in every IAEA report over the past two years. It is during this period that the US has been pressing for UN sanctions to which Iran has responded by limiting IAEA access to its nuclear facilities. In February 2006, Tehran ended its voluntary implementation of the IAEA’s additional protocol for more intrusive inspections, after the IAEA Board referred Iran to the UN Security Council.

As other media agencies have pointed out, the latest IAEA report is “mixed” in its assessment of Iran’s nuclear programs—calling for greater cooperation on the one hand, but at the same time acknowledging that Iran has provided access to individuals and responded satisfactorily to IAEA questions. Large portions of the report are said to clarify details of Iran’s acquisition of centrifuges through the so-called black market network of Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. The “work plan” is not due to be concluded until next month.

The Bush administration’s highly selective use of the IAEA report, as well as its belligerence towards ElBaradei, recalls the campaign of lies about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction prior to the US-led invasion in 2003. As in the case of Iraq, the White House alleges that Iran has secret nuclear programs that are hidden from the IAEA. Each step by Tehran to answer the IAEA’s concerns is met with new questions and demands from Washington. The process is endless as it is impossible for the Iran to prove a negative: that nowhere in its large territory are there secret facilities.

An Associated Press article on Wednesday reported that the US, Britain and France had prepared their rebuttal of the IAEA report well in advance. Each country has been privately circulating a document setting out dozens of new questions that the IAEA had to investigate.

France wanted a full “chronology of contacts” between Iran and the Khan network and demanded to know why Iran was producing centrifuge components at military facilities. Britain impugned the IAEA, repeatedly questioning its conclusions by asking “what has Iran told the Agency that has given the Agency confidence that Iran’s declaration in this regard is now correct and complete?” The US demanded “access to all individuals ... facilities, equipment [and] materials” that can shed light on the suggestions that early enrichment activities were more developed than Tehran admits to and were linked to the military.

In another move that smacks of the Bush administration’s dirty tricks, the New York Times published an article yesterday claiming that Iran had been prevented from buying “nuclear-related materials at least 75 times over the past nine years because of suspicions that the purchases could have been used for building bombs.” The confidential information from the Nuclear Suppliers Group had been conveniently leaked to the newspaper by “a diplomat from a country interested in exposing the extent of Iranian efforts to acquire dual-use items that can be converted to weapons production.”

Conveniently buried at the end of the article was the fact that “the nuclear-related materials” covered a range of items from nickel powder and electron microscopes to a mass spectrometer and lasers, all of which have a large number of varied applications. Again there is a parallel with Iraq. Prior to 2003, the US administration notoriously used UN bans on so-called dual-use items to cripple the Iraqi economy and infrastructure.

The rising temperature of US propaganda against Iran has nothing to do with its alleged nuclear weapons programs, or the other pretext for a new war that is being drummed up—Iranian “meddling” in Iraq. Rather, with a little more than a year left in office, the Bush administration is actively preparing for a military confrontation with Iran.

The aim of any US military attack against Iran is not simply to destroy its nuclear facilities but to further US ambitions to secure a dominant strategic and economic role throughout the resources rich-regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. The sharpening tensions with Russia and China are a warning that a new conflict has the potential to escalate into a far broader war involving the major powers.

"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 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

israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7903/index.php

Israel, US Joint Plotting Against Iran, Attack ElBaredei

israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7888/index.php