Target Iran?

[Brian Ellis]

I believe they are a signatory, but cannot be sure.

The BBC reported on the steam radio yesterday that el Baradei had issued a statement that he could not be sure of Iran pursuing only peaceful intentions. The implication is that he hadn't a clue one way or the other, so the SC should not jump to conclusions.

[schmosef]

I believe they are a signatory, but cannot be sure.

The BBC reported on the steam radio yesterday that el Baradei had issued a statement that he could not be sure of Iran pursuing only peaceful intentions. The implication is that he hadn't a clue one way or the other, so the SC should not jump to conclusions.

So what's your take then on what Jack Straw (I'm pretty sure it was Jack Straw but it could have been an aide) said that being in non-compliance puts the onus on Iran to absolve themselves, not the rest of the world to develop proof?

[Brian Ellis]

Straw, as his name implies, is a man of straw, a mouthpiece of Tony B-Liar. In reality, his own views are fairly moderate, but he rarely allows anyone to glimpse them. I therefore take little notice of what he says.

My respect for him dropped when it was revealed that he was opposed to the war in Iraq, before it happened, and said so at the cabinet meeting discussing the possibility. Two other MPs, equally against the war, slammed the cabinet door rather than compromise their convictions. Straw was persuaded by Blair to appear to support him, to keep his seat. Talk about prostitution...

[schmosef]

Straw, as his name implies, is a man of straw, a mouthpiece of Tony B-Liar. In reality, his own views are fairly moderate, but he rarely allows anyone to glimpse them. I therefore take little notice of what he says.

My respect for him dropped when it was revealed that he was opposed to the war in Iraq, before it happened, and said so at the cabinet meeting discussing the possibility. Two other MPs, equally against the war, slammed the cabinet door rather than compromise their convictions. Straw was persuaded by Blair to appear to support him, to keep his seat. Talk about prostitution...

What does your opinion of Straw have to do with the treaty?

If the treaty says that signatories found in non-compliance are themselves responsible to show that they are indeed in compliance, I don't think it matters who happens to point that out.

Once again, if what he said is correct re: the onus being on Iran to show that they have no weapons program, what is your stance?

[Umfriend]

Iran is a signatorie to the NPT. Hence they say, correctly if looked at de jure that they have the right to develop nuclear technology for whatever purpose aside from bombs. They do, however, have to agree to regular and irregular investigation by the IEAE (or whatever it is called). It is this that they have been in breach of and Jack Straw (if he was the guy, and I am very wiling to accept he could have said this) is right. Regardless of what one thinks. Even the biggest a-hole can be right once.

[schmosef]

Even the biggest a-hole can be right once.

I was going to write that even a broken clock is correct twice a day but I didn't want to digress.

[schmosef]

Doing Business with Iran

January 16, 2006, 10:51 a.m.
Doing Business with Iran
Top U.N. officials responsible for nuclear nonproliferation are facilitating Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Backstabbing by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan reached another low-water mark late last week, as Annan worked furiously to undo European and American efforts to bring Iran before the Security Council. Reminiscent of his 1998 comment after visiting Saddam Hussein, "I think I can do business with him," Annan told reporters on Thursday: "I had a 40-minute conversation with Mr. [Ali] Larijani, the Iranian negotiator of the nuclear issue. ...He in turn affirmed to me that they are interested in serious and constructive negotiations..." He later explained, "the negotiations relate to the EU3," Britain, France, and Germany.

Trouble is, that a few hours earlier the EU3 had issued a statement saying "we have decided to inform the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] Board of Governors that our discussions with Iran have reached an impasse." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had also told reporters: "The United States fully supports the decision announced today by the [E3-EU]...the basis for negotiation is no longer there, because what the Iranians did was to unilaterally destroy the basis on which the negotiations were taking place..."

Following the secretary-general's news conference, rumor has it that France's U.N. ambassador complained to Annan directly, but Annan was said to be livid — not at Iran — but at the criticism.

Such a reaction would be par for the course for Kofi Annan, who has done little to hide his bias. He was asked in Friday's press briefing, "Are you indicating that perhaps it is too early for the IAEA to refer the Iranian dispute to the Security Council?" He answered: "First of all, I think we should try and resolve it, if possible, in the IAEA context. [Mohamed] ElBaradei is working with the parties, doing his best to try and resolve it there." And he added: "I have been talking to all the parties, doing whatever I can to encourage a negotiated settlement and really keeping people at the table and trying to discourage escalation, and I will continue to do that."

In other words, as far as Annan is concerned, the problem is not that Iran has escalated the stakes. The problem is that involvement of the Security Council, which is supposed to be the "organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security," is escalation. The U.N. chief aims to shift the dynamic from taking strong action against an Iranian madman, bent on nuclear proliferation and the obliteration of a U.N. member state, to placing roadblocks in the way of an American-driven effort to stop it.

There is the nagging difficulty of the statute of the IAEA, which mandates a referral to the Security Council in cases such as Iran. The IAEA decided formally in September 2005 that Iran had breached its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and that those breaches "constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency's Statute." It also found "that the history of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities...and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council..."

Under these conditions the statute of the IAEA makes referral to the Security Council mandatory. Article XII.C: "...The Board [of Governors of the IAEA] shall report the non-compliance to all members and to the Security Council and General Assembly of the United Nations." Article III.B.4: "...if in connection with the activities of the Agency there should arise questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, the Agency shall notify the Security Council..."

Joining Annan in lobbying hard to keep Iran away from the Council has been his sidekick Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA. When the September 2005 resolution was not followed by a reference to the Council, ElBaradei said, "I am encouraged that the issue has not been referred to the Security Council, precisely to give time for diplomacy and negotiation." When the November 2005 IAEA board of governors meeting also failed to produce such a referral, ElBaradei was pleased: "I still believe that robust verification by the Agency, combined with active dialogue among all concerned parties, is the best way to move forward."

So now you have it. The top U.N. officials responsible for nuclear nonproliferation are in the business of facilitating Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Annan and ElBaradei will ultimately not be able to prevent the Iranian issue from getting to the Security Council. But with like-minded Council members such as Russia and China, they will continue to work behind the scenes to prevent timely and sufficiently strong Security Council action.

The U.N. will not relieve the U.S. administration from taking responsibility for preventing a nuclear Iran. And there is precious little time to stop pretending otherwise.

— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College Law Center. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org..

* * *

[Dr Mordrid]

A long way of stating the obvious

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

The UN could really be a wonderful thing if it were in the hands of intelligent, mature, responsible people.

[schmosef]

IRAN'S NUKES, EUROPE'S FOLLIES

New York Post - Online Edition
By AMIR TAHERI

January 17, 2006 -- TREATING Iran's alleged nuclear ambition as a hot potato, the European trio of Britain, Germany and France has decided to pass it on to the International Atomic Energy Agency and thence to the United Nations' Security Council. "Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," says Germany's new Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

In truth, however, the trio's three-year talks with Iran started at a dead end.

The talks began when Iran admitted that it had been lying to the International Atomic Energy Agency and violating the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) for 18 years but promised not to do so again.

Legally speaking, Iran should have been referred to the Security Council at that time. But the Europeans rejected U.S. demands to that effect and decided to forgive Iran for its past sins — much as a deceived spouse might show magnanimity toward a sinning partner.

In exchange, they asked Iran — as then French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin put it — to give them "something with which to silence the Americans."

De Villepin had devised the scheme as a means of exposing what he called "the follies of American policy"; Iran could be dealt with "the French way," meaning negotiations and compromise rather than knuckle-rapping or worse.

The Iranians had good reason to welcome the European offer. It removed the serious-seeming threat of military action, while isolating the United States. And it gave Tehran time to speed up its nuclear program.

The Iranians were honest throughout: They said they were prepared to give that "something" needed "to silence the Americans" in the form of a voluntary and temporary suspension of uranium-enrichment activities. They did not promise a permanent ban. Nor would they relinquish Iran's right, under the NPT, to enrich uranium for fuel.

The European trio was deceived by its own illusions, not Iranian chicanery. All it was interested in was to score a point against Washington. Even now, the trio is not asking Iran to permanently forgo its right to enrich uranium.

And now the trio must negotiate with a much tougher Iranian: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called the Europeans "nothing but corrupt midgets." He is also convinced that the United States has missed the opportunity to use the threat of military action against Iran.

As a result, Ahmadinejad is actively seeking a diplomatic confrontation with the Europeans and escalating tension with the Americans. He believes that he can take on both and win — and hopes to thereby emerge as the unrivaled master of the Islamic Republic and de facto leader of the Muslim world.

The Europeans are not prepared to acknowledge that the problem is not uranium enrichment but the nature of the Iranian regime. More than 20 countries, from Argentina to Ukraine, enrich uranium without anyone making a fuss. But who can trust the present leadership in Tehran not to embark upon some tragic mischief in the name of its ideology?

European-style appeasement has encouraged Tehran's most radical faction, helping bring Ahmadinejad to power. All the diplomatic gesticulations to follow will only compound that effect.

The Islamic Republic has had three years to prepare for whatever sanctions the Security Council might impose. It has also signed $70 billion in oil and gas contracts with China and $30 billion in arms and industrial contracts with Russia, ensuring that one or both would veto any harsh resolution against Iran.

This is one of those regimes that will not stop until they hit something hard. Why should they, when they can pursue their objectives cost-free? Soft power may work — if it is backed by hard power. Yet Europe has, once again, made it clear that it would oppose even the threat of hard power.

As things stand, all those concerned in this carnival of absurdities have reason to be happy: The Europeans get rid of the hot potato, the Bush administration finds a diplomatic fig-leaf to cover its lack of an Iran policy, the Russians sell their arms, the Chinese get their oil and gas and the Islamists in Tehran accelerate whatever mischief they might be up to in the nuclear domain.

But the problem remains unresolved. Down the road, the West may well find that it would have to use far more than the mere threat of hard power to restrain Tehran's messianic ambitions — a much costlier bill than would have been the case three years ago.

Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

"Something with which to silence the Americans"?!!!

Gotta love impudence of the French!

[schmosef]

ROFLMAO!

[schmosef]

Iran extends nuclear plant in secret

Iran has secretly extended the uranium enrichment plant at the centre of the international controversy over its resumption of banned nuclear research earlier this month, satellite imagery has revealed.

Seven buildings have been erected around the concealed centrifuges which Western governments fear will be used to manufacture weapons-grade uranium at the Natanz site, 200 miles south of Teheran.

The discovery has heightened fears that Iran is stepping up the pace of its suspected weapons programme, in breach of international agreements, since it removed International Atomic Energy Authority seals on nuclear equipment at the site 10 days ago.

Western intelligence agencies are focusing on alarming similarities in satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear sites, which the regime claims are for civilian purposes, and atomic facilities in Pakistan used to make the raw materials for nuclear weapons, as they try to identify the purpose of the Natanz construction spree.

The building work took place unannounced during a 16-month pause in research and development at the site, while Iran engaged the West in protracted talks over its professed desire to develop nuclear power. The existence of the Natanz site was kept secret until it was exposed by an Iranian opposition group in 2002. Iran started to move funds out of the European banks on Friday to avoid possible financial sanctions after its scientists resumed work. The showdown has contributed to soaring world oil prices and a slump on Wall Street stock markets.

The Sunday Telegraph has seen recent United States intelligence analysis of satellite photographs of nuclear sites in Iran and Pakistan that strengthens fears that the Islamic regime is secretly developing atomic weapons under the guise of a supposedly peaceful power programme. "Iran's facilities are scaled exactly like another state's facilities that were designed to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons," the US report concluded, using the phrase "another state" to refer to Pakistan for diplomatic reasons.

The intelligence briefing also studies Iran's heavy water plant and reactor at Araq and its ballistic missile programme and compares them with Pakistan's facilities. The world learnt that Islamabad had built nuclear weapons only when it conducted first tests in 1998.

John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent Washington defence research consultancy that specialises in analysing satellite images, told this newspaper: "These pictures indicate that Iran is replicating every major step that Pakistan took in its atomic bomb programme."

Both US intelligence and Mr Pike's independent analysis highlight the Araq site, where Iran claims it is processing heavy water for a medical isotope programme. It bears a striking resemblance to Pakistan's site at Khushab.

Heavy water production reactors can be designed to covert uranium into weapons-grade plutonium without the need for further enrichment. Pakistan, India, Israel North Korea, Russia and the US are all believed to have used them for this purpose.

The US intelligence assessment concludes that Iran could produce enough plutonium each year at Araq for up to three nuclear bombs.

In other parallels, Iran's scientists are conducting their latest round of research using Pakistani-designed centrifuges at Natanz. The two countries are also both developing similar ballistic missiles, able to carry nuclear warheads.

Evidence of new building at Natanz has further fuelled concerns about Iran's intentions. "It is surprising to see how much construction work has taken place," said Mr Pike. "The Iranians have been very busy even while the seals were in place."

The Iranians kept the existence of the Natanz and Araq sites secret until 2002 when IAEA inspectors confirmed opposition claims that Iran had been conducting a nuclear programme for 18 years. Teheran is widely believed to have received help during this time from A Q Khan, the maverick scientist who developed Pakistan's bomb and sold his know-how to rogue states around the world. The two countries have denied any official co-operation.

The US intelligence report that draws the parallels between the Iranian and Pakistani sites also concludes that while Iran's uranium reserves are not enough for its claimed goal of nuclear energy independence, they are large enough for atomic bomb production.

British, French and German diplomats from the so-called EU3 negotiating team, backed by Washington, are this weekend discussing with Russian and Chinese counterparts the contents of a draft resolution on Iran before an emergency IAEA meeting next month. Russia and China are unwilling to back early calls for sanctions.

[schmosef]

more details:

On their home page, GraphicLens currently features an interactive Flash graphic showing the construction at Natanz since August 2002.

[schmosef]

Tehran plans a nuclear weapons test before March 20, 2006 – the Iranian New Year, moves Shahab-3 missiles within striking range of Israel

Reporting this, the dissident Foundation for Democracy in Iran, a US-based watch group, cites sources in the US and Iran. The FDI adds from Iran: on June 16, the high command of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force ordered Shahab-3 missile units to move mobile launchers every 24 hours instead of weekly. This is in view of a potential pre-emptive strike by the US or Israel.

Advance Shahab-3 units have been positioned in Kermanshah and Hamad within striking distance of Israel, reserve launchers moved to Esfahan and Fars.

The missile units were told to change positions “in a radius of 30-35 kilometers” and only at night.

DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources add: FDI reporting has a reputation for credibility. Western and Israeli intelligence have known for more than six months that Iran’s nuclear program has reached the capability of being able to carry out a nuclear explosion, albeit underground. It would probably be staged in a desert or mountain region and activated by a distant control center. Tehran would aim at confronting the Americans, Europeans and Israelis with an irreversible situation.

At the same time, an explosion of this sort would indicate that Iran is not yet able to produce a nuclear bomb that can be delivered by airplane or a warhead adapted to a missile. The stage Iran has reached is comparable to Pakistan’s when it conducted its first nuclear tests in the nineties and North Korea’s in 2001. All the same, an Iranian underground nuclear blast, which will most probably be attempted on March 22, would turn around the strategic position of all the parties concerned and the Middle East as whole.

The question now is: will the United States, Israel or both deliver a pre-emptive strike ahead of the Iranian underground test - or later? Or will Washington alternatively use the event to bring the UN Security Council round to economic sanctions? Tehran is already organizing to withstand economic penalties. For Israel, the timing is getting tight in view of its general election on March 28. Acting prime minister Ehud Olmert must take into account that a ruling party which allows an Iranian nuclear explosion to take place six days before the poll would draw painful punishment from the voter.

[schmosef]

Iran sets up secret team to infiltrate UN nuclear watchdog, say officials

Iran has formed a top secret team of nuclear specialists to infiltrate the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the UN-sponsored body that monitors its nuclear programme, The Daily Telegraph has been told.

Its target is the IAEA's safeguards division and its aim is to obtain information on the work of IAEA inspectors so that Iran can conceal the more sensitive areas of its nuclear research, according to information recently received by western intelligence.

Teheran insists that the sole purpose of the controversial programme is to develop alternative energy sources. But many western governments, including Britain and the United States, believe it is secretly developing a nuclear arsenal.

The operation to target the IAEA is being run by Hosein Afarideh, the former head of the Iranian parliament's energy committee.

Mr Afarideh, reported to have close links with Iran's ministry of intelligence, is in regular contact with a team of Iranian nuclear engineers seconded to work at the IAEA's Vienna headquarters.

According to western intelligence reports, Mr Afarideh heads a three-man team at the headquarters of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran in Teheran, to prevent more embarrassing disclosures about its nuclear facilities.

In the past the Iranians have managed to conceal key facilities from IAEA inspectors, including the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, 100 miles north of Isfahan. They were reluctantly forced to admit the existence of Natanz and other top secret facilities three years ago after Iranian exile groups provided details of their operations.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is entitled to full access to the IAEA for help with the development of its nuclear programme, so long as it is purely for peaceful purposes.

But western intelligence officials believe that the Iranians are now taking advantage of their access to the IAEA to spy on its inspection procedures so that they can conceal sensitive areas of their nuclear operations from the outside world.

"The Iranians are getting increasingly concerned about the effectiveness of the IAEA's inspections," a senior western intelligence official told The Daily Telegraph.

"For this reason they are deliberately targeting the IAEA so that they can be better prepared when the inspectors visit their facilities."

An IAEA spokesman refused to comment on the intelligence reports. However, an official who confirmed that a number of Iranian nuclear engineers were working at the IAEA's headquarters said the agency had set up stringent safeguards to ensure that no country had access to the inspection teams investigating its nuclear facilities.

"We have a firewall system that prevents any member state finding out how the inspection teams working on that country operate," said the official.

Despite this close supervision, Iranian scientists working at the IAEA in Vienna travel frequently to Teheran, where they meet Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran officials including Mr Afarideh. Mr Afarideh is also in close contact with Mohsein Fakhrizadeh, head of the organisation's physical research centre.

IAEA inspectors have made repeated requests to interview Mr Fakhrizadeh about key aspects of Iran's nuclear programme. But the Iranian government has refused to grant them access to him.

IAEA experts predict that Iran will be able to produce weapons-grade uranium within three years if the processing plants operate without international supervision.