News Another obstacle to Iran attack is removed

[seycyrus]

This is my biggest fear - that Israel will act unilaterally

Yes Iran has stated that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel has stated that it will not let Iran have the means to do so.

That it is why it is IMPERATIVE that we stop playing apologist for Iran, and demand that they fully comply with the IAEA.

 

[turbo]

Yes Iran has stated that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel has stated that it will not let Iran have the means to do so.

That it is why it is IMPERATIVE that we stop playing apologist for Iran, and demand that they fully comply with the IAEA.

According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years. They are not running a weapons program. Israel is running the same scam that Bush ran on Iraq. Accuse them of something (WMDs, whatever) and then threaten to attack unless they can PROVE they are not. As it turns out Iraq was telling the truth and our president and his cronies were lying. We should take no more human lives on the word of war-mongers.

 

[turbo]

BTW, our own NIE says that Iran stopped their military nuclear program 5 years ago in 2003. Bush and Cheney held up the release of the NIE because they badly want a new war and the NIE did not support their trumped-up "intelligence". Anyone with a memory will recognize this tactic being used to start the Iraq war

 

[seycyrus]

BTW, our own NIE says that Iran stopped their military nuclear program 5 years ago in 2003.

No, it claims that they stopped the one specific program that was being looked at.

the one that the Iranians said *never* existed.

 

[seycyrus]

According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2008/ebsp2008n005.html#iran

Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, june 2 2008

"However, it is regrettable that we have not made the progress we had hoped for with respect to the one remaining major issue, namely clarification of the cluster of allegations and Secretariat questions relevant to possible military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme."

...

"Iran maintains that it has never had a nuclear weapons programme and that the documents related to these alleged studies are "forged" or "fabricated"

...

"However, Iran has not yet agreed to implement all the transparency measures required to clarify this cluster of allegations and questions. Iran has not provided the Agency with all the access to documents and to individuals requested by the Secretariat, nor has Iran provided the substantive explanations required to support its statements."



I could go on ...

Your definition of compliance needs some revision.

 

[turbo]

The IAEA was suggesting that allegations of planning for a weapons program could be on-going. That's about as flimsy as it gets. If the IAEA had demanded that level of transparency (or even a far, far lesser level) from our own government or Israels, they'd have been told where to shove that demand. Apparently, there is very drastically contrasting double-standard in play.

Iran has offered to partner with foreign nuclear states to allow them to oversee commercial enrichment on Iranian soil, but you don't hear about that in the US press. Nevertheless, the neo-cons and Israel want to engage the US in yet another war, and they have a compliant population of gullible people willing them to let them have it.

 

[mheslep]

From the 26 May IAEA Board Report:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf

28. ... Substantive explanations are required from Iran to support its statements on the alleged studies and on other information with a possible military dimension...

29. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP and the installation of both new cascades and of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has also continued with the construction of the IR–40 reactor.

30. The Director General urges Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, including the Additional Protocol, at the earliest possible date.

 

[turbo]

Enemies of Iran make allegations, and then the IAEA demands that Iran PROVE that their enrichment programs are for peaceful purposes. This cannot be done. You cannot prove a negative.

Our own NIE claims that Iran stopped their enrichment program in 2003. Saber-rattlers say otherwise, and their track record (how many people dead and wounded in Iraq) should make you doubt them. We don't need more needless deaths based on lies.

 

[seycyrus]

The IAEA was suggesting that allegations of planning for a weapons program could be on-going.

No, that part referred to the fact that it *should* be ongoing.


"...concerns about Iran´s future intentions go well beyond verification and require agreement on confidence and security-building measures."

*require*

The entire ensemble statements from the IAEA clearly show that they are not satisfied with Iran's level of compliance.

Your reinterpretation of what the IAEA *really* means is stretching thinner and thinner.

If the IAEA had demanded that level of transparency (or even a far, far lesser level) from our own government or Israels,

Regarding what aspect of *what* program?

Note, Israel is not a signatory...

Nevertheless, the neo-cons...

Do you get a nickel every time you use that word?

 

[mheslep]

...Iran has offered to partner with foreign nuclear states to allow them to oversee commercial enrichment on Iranian soil, but you don't hear about that in the US press.

Because it never happened

 

[seycyrus]

Enemies of Iran make allegations, and then the IAEA demands that Iran PROVE that their enrichment programs are for peaceful purposes. This cannot be done. You cannot prove a negative.

They want Iran to comply with the obligations that it agreed to when it signed the NPT.

Our own NIE claims that Iran stopped their enrichment program in 2003.

Again. That refers to one specific program. A program which to this day Iran claims never existed.

 

[mheslep]

According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years. ...

IAEA Board report 2004 (A.2. Implications)

Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its [NPT] Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdf

 

[turbo]

But it did happen. Iran passed a proposal to allow foreign partners in their commercial enrichment program and would have given them effective control of the program. The fact that Iran offered to do this and was actively negotiating with one of our European partners to put the deal together is never mentioned in the US press.

http://www.theparliament.com/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/iran-asks-france-to-enrich-uranium/

Iran has asked France to “create a consortium to produce enriched uranium” in a bid to break the deadlock over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

The deputy director of Iran’s atomic energy agency Mohammed Saedi told the France Info radio station that a deal was imminent with two French companies, Areva and Eurodif, to enrich uranium in Iran.

The companies would be given “tangible” control of Iran’s nuclear activities, Saedi told the radio station – which would also allow UN nuclear inspectors to restart their investigations.

Tehran has refused to give into US-led calls for an end to its nuclear programme – which Washington believes is about creating weapons, not energy – and still faces the threat of UN sanctions.

 

[lisab]

It is necessary to make the distinction, because true conservatives like myself would never act like these radical warmongers, starting wars at will and wasting US blood and treasure to profit their handlers.

You're absolutely right. I've seen nothing in the neo-cons foreign policy that is remotely conservative.

 

[Evo]

Ok people, let's try to bring this back up to an adult level please.

 

[seycyrus]

But it did happen.

The deal never happened. It never went through. It's not actively happening.

The fact that Iran offered to do this and was actively negotiating with one of our European partners to put the deal together is never mentioned in the US press.

Uhm, yeah... I heard about the proposal. the fact that your exact headline wasn't used by the NYT aint evidence of a conspiracy.

So, are you going to address the multitude of statements directly from the IAEA showing that they are not happy with Iran's level of compliance?

 

[AhmedEzz]

What is to become of Iran if it is not fully complying with the IAEA? given that sanctions are already imposed.

 

[turbo]

Iran accepts the proposal of former US embassador Thomas Pickering to allow an internationally-owned consortium to run their enrichment program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/iran-accepted-pickerings_b_104932.html

We propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, workable solution to the US-Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran's sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well.

If you don't know who Tom Pickering is, let me assure you that he is no pinko appeaser. Nor is he visiting assistant lecturer in thumb-sucking at St. Martha's on the Swamp. Pickering was the Reagan Administration's Ambassador to El Salvador during the U.S.-sponsored "air war" in 1984-5. He was Reagan's Ambassador to Israel when Israel was crushing the first Intifada with "force, might, beatings." Now he's co-chair of the International Crisis Group, and Chairman of the American Academy of Diplomacy. You can't, if you have a shred of respect for experience or expertise in international relations, accuse Tom Pickering of being naïve.

 

[mheslep]

Russia offered the Iranians a nuclear power deal in in early 2006: Russia does the enrichment in Russia and then would later pick up spent fuel from Iranian reactors. Everybody liked the idea, US, Euros, etc. Iran rejected it.

TEHRAN, March 12 -- Iran rejected an offer from Russia to enrich uranium on its behalf Sunday, closing the door on what had been the most promising diplomatic resolution to international concerns over its nuclear program...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200275.html

The Iranian offer on Oct 3 2006 to French held Areva came well after the UN Security Council demand to stop all enrichment. The UN action was largely precipitated by the rejection Russia offer. The French backed the UN action, and so of course the Avera offer was immediately rejected by both the French, US and UK. The Areva offer was also for enrichment on Iranian soil. Any proposal to enrich on Iranian soil is meaningless; it would mean a large influx of foreign technology which the Iranians could seize at any time, and then be well ahead of where they are now in the weapons game.

 

[seycyrus]

Iran accepts the proposal of former US embassador Thomas Pickering to allow an internationally-owned consortium to run their enrichment program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/iran-accepted-pickerings_b_104932.html

Ok, this happened 3 days ago. I still don't think it qualifies as a conspiracy. Everyone was waiting for Clinton to burst into tears as she worried about the future of her country since she wouldn't be prez.

How has the IAEA responded to this offer?

 

[turbo]

Ok, this happened 3 days ago. I still don't think it qualifies as a conspiracy. Everyone was waiting for Clinton to burst into tears as she worried about the future of her country since she wouldn't be prez.

How has the IAEA responded to this offer?

I didn't call it a conspiracy, you did. The US press barely covers anything positive about diplomatic initiatives on the part of the Iranians. You can speculate on the source of the bias - I won't go there. What is clear is that even when the Iranians agree to proposals put forth by conservative US figures, they are ignored and the news is buried, and the drum-beat for war goes on.

We don't need any more wars. There is a lot of money to be made from wars, and the neo-conservatives have been entirely co-opted by the people who contract military support service, military hardware, etc. Please follow the money. That's the motivation for war in every case when the initiator of the war is not threatened by the nation that they attack.

No more wars except in defense of our country. Pre-emptive wars on such flimsy pretexts are abhorrent and are in violation of international law.

 

[seycyrus]

OK, OK...doing a bit more reading on the huffington article, I just can't resist...

"On Saturday, the Boston Globe ran an interview by Farah Stockman with Mohammad Khazaee, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations."

...

"Iran's May 13 proposal referred to the idea, but gave no details."

...

"...this appears to reference a proposal advanced most recently in the US by former US Ambassador Thomas Pickering, William Luers, and Jim Walsh in the March 20, 2008 issue of the ***New York Review of Books***."

(emphasis mine)

You're wondering why the U.S. is not responding to an interview in the Globe in which the ambassador makes a reference about a *vague idea that lacked details* that was initially brought up on a *website* that *reviews books*

Gee willakers Wally, I wonder why that is?

Maybe the Iranian Govt. could step up to the IAEA and make a concrete proposal, with specifics?

 

[seycyrus]

I didn't call it a conspiracy, you did.

Oh don't be afraid of the conspiracy word. I know Hilary ruined it by throwing the term around so much, but it still it has it's uses.

One use would be if one imaged that the entire US media was selectively filtering the news it covered.

What is clear is that even when the Iranians agree to proposals put forth by conservative US figures, they are ignored and the news is buried, and the drum-beat for war goes on.

Yeah, that was put forth on a website dedicated to book reviews.

I heard the Iranian ambassador responded to a few proposals from a 4-H meeting in Conneticut. Haven't heard about that in the press either.

 

[Evo]

Have you read what Obama said about Iran? He will attack Iran if diplomacy fails in the near future, if he's President.

Also, thread closed, this is going nowhere.