BBC: The UN nuclear watchdog has passed a resolution that paves the way for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear ambitions. The IAEA did not however set a date for reporting Iran to the council, which could ultimately decide to impose sanctions on the country. ... Mr ElBaradei said the question of referring Iran to the UN Security Council should not come up before November, when the 35-member IAEA board meets again. He urged all the parties involved to "exploit this window of opportunity" for negotiation and diplomacy. ... Iran concealed its nuclear fuel programme for nearly 20 years before it was confirmed by US satellite pictures in 2002. Traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium were found at its Natanz plant a year later. Tehran avoided being reported immediately to the Security Council in 2003 by opening talks with Britain, France and Germany. However, those talks broke down after Iran resumed its uranium conversion process - suspended since November 2004 - in August and pronounced it had an "inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel.
Er um... not before Novbermber, huh. WELL WELL WELL: that's RIGHT AFTER the UN is expected to issue a report on the assassination of Hariri - a report which is expected to directly implicate Assad, and probably lead to his downfall (or utter cave in - which is just as good, if not better).
SO: the EU/IAEA's "SOFT NOVEMBER" deadline should NOT be interpreted as a "gesture" to Iran, (intended to make them more likely to cooperate with the international community); it should only be interpreted as a "timing-move" which allows the USA and our allies the time we need to gets our ducks in a row: we will "deal with" Syria first - (and solidify our gains in Iraq), BEFORE we turn our attention to Iran. By dealing with Syria first, we further isolate Iran and make dealing with them on ANY front - using ANY MEANS NECESSARY - much MUCH easier. And a good outcome more likely.
9 comments:
The US would have preferred an immediate referral to the Security Council - which was the first draft of the resolution.
The second draft that does not have an immediate referral seems to have been arranged in exchange for the Non-Aligned States abstaining instead of voting no.
The security council will veto almost any conceivable resolution, except the weakest imaginable. But that's what the US wants for some reason.
Anyway, as much as you would like the Iranians to not have the technology necessary to make nuclear bombs, the NPT that they signed does not prohibit them getting that technology.
Iran is now voluntarily following the additional protocols which gives IAEA inspectors the right to make short-notice inspections. In fact there is no obligation that Iran has that Iran is not following.
The problem is that Iran has not done some things that the IAEA would like but are clearly beyond the requirements of the NPT, the safeguards agreement and the additional protocols.
In fact the NPT is clear that any country can develop the technology without prejudice, and the nuclear powers are obliged to _help them_ as long as their programs are under safeguards.
What the West is asking for is an arbitrary change in the terms of the NPT. Iran will not go along as they shouldn't.
Does the US have good military options to enforce the unilateral amendment it is adding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty? The Iranians think the answer is no.
I don't see any good options myself. Things will definitely get a lot harder in Iraq if there is any military action. Bombing will not do more than slow the program down unless the US follows up by invading, and where would the troops come from for that?
It may not even slow the program down because Iran would then end all inspections and do a crash course to the bomb, quite possibly with help.
See here:
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2005/09/persian-puzzle-i-iran-and-invention-of.html
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2005/09/persian-puzzle-ii-what-iaea-really.html
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2005/09/persian-puzzle-iii-world-must-stand.html
yo, anonymous:
you are either a dupe; a liar; or an agent of iran (perhaps a PAID agent and registered as such); or all of the above.
lookit:
1 - as the bbc wrote in tha article I linked to - and this was in the post:
"Iran concealed its nuclear fuel programme for nearly 20 years before it was confirmed by US satellite pictures in 2002."
IRAN LIED about enriching uranium.
why would they lie if their intentions were NOT to make bombs!?
Concealment is a violation of the NPT.
2 - COVERTLY enriching uranuium IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE NPT.
Iran was caught red-handed on September 12, 2003.
3 - US STATE DEPT:
"Another case of Article II and III violations has thrust itself upon the attention of the international community as more and more of Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program has been exposed to public view by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
[...]
The U.S. Government, however, has been warning for more than a decade that Iran wished to develop nuclear weapons, and was probably “in the early stages of developing a nuclear weapons program.” We have warned consistently about Iran’s secret nuclear ambitions ever since, concluding last year, for instance, that “Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons . . . in violation of Iran’s NPT commitments.” Thanks to the public exposure of Iran’s secret work on gas centrifuge and laser uranium enrichment, plutonium separation, the production of polonium useable in nuclear weapons triggers, it is now clear that our worries were correct."
http://www.state.gov/t/vc/rls/rm/2004/32572.htm
4 - also from above link:
" Iran continues to refuse ratification and to restrict IAEA activity within its borders – even to the point of barring IAEA inspectors from Iran for a time last March. "
BARRING IAEA INSPECTIONS IS ANOTHER VIOLATION OF THE NPT.
5 - also from above link:
The IAEA Board of Governors, for example, declared that it “strongly deplores” Iran’s “failures and breaches of its obligation to comply” with its safeguards obligations. Most recently, the Board declared that it “deplores” Iran’s omission of advanced P-2 centrifuge work from its supposedly “complete” declaration to the IAEA in October 2003 – a matter about which the IAEA Director General also expressed “serious concern.”
FILING A FASLE DECLARATION IS A VIOLATION OF THE NPT.
Why would they do this? The ONLY logical explanantion is a nuclear weapons program.
The proof is INCONTROVERTIBLE.
only a paid stooge and a traitor, or an iranian agent or a islamofascist would disagree.
WHICH ARE YOU?
in case you are wondering why i think you are a dumbshit, here's what you wrote thatb is FALKSE:
"In fact there is no obligation that Iran has that Iran is not following. The problem is that Iran has not done some things that the IAEA would like but are clearly beyond the requirements of the NPT, the safeguards agreement and the additional protocols.
In fact the NPT is clear that any country can develop the technology without prejudice, and the nuclear powers are obliged to _help them_ as long as their programs are under safeguards. What the West is asking for is an arbitrary change in the terms of the NPT. Iran will not go along as they shouldn't."
Iran has been violating the NPT for 20 (TWENTY) years.
They must and will be dealt with.
We NEARL:Y have them completely surrounded - we are in Afghanistan, Iraq, central Asia. And we will soon topple Syria.
Once they are geographically and diplomatically ISOLATED we will turn up the military heat, and the intra-Iran poltical heat - by using Iran's Kurds and their students, and infiltration from Afghanistan.
By the time the table is set - and that probably includes MOST of the following(1) settling affairs with Kim Jong Il (with China's help),and (2) Iraq passing its constitution, and Iraq getting its army together, and us & them capturing and (3) having a final arrangement between israel ansd Palestibnians - wither negotiated OR unilateral - it matters not, and (5) killing OBL and Zarqawi and Zawahiri, and (6) sdeposing Assad ()as ptreviously mentioned) - then we will give IRAN a MILITARY ULTIMATUM:
"Dismantle and allow 100% unfettered inspections of your nuke program or we will destroy your nuclear assets and you military assets and your oil assets."
that's why Spring 2006 is gonna be so so so so SO so so so damn interesting.
tick....tick....tick...
You seem pretty angry, partner. I don't really care, just thought I'd point out how you seem in case you don't know.
I can't predict the future. Maybe you're right and the US will topple Syria and then Iran in Spring 2006.
I don't see a resolution passing the Security Council even urging Iran to suspend uranium conversion, since Iran is allowed to convert uranium under the NPT.
South Korea ran undisclosed laser uranium enrichment tests to weapons-grade purity. The IAEA found out recently, determined the scope, determined that South Korea is not producing bombs and moved on.
Iran has accepted the Additional Protocols and allows inspections of any facility in Iran - the most recent announcement from the IAEA do not claim there are facilities that they have not inspected.
The IAEA would like to interview Iranian personnel admittedly beyond Iran's legal Additional Protocol requirements.
Anyway, bombing Iran would be very bad for the world in terms of the flow of oil. And the US has interests in the region, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan that Iran could retaliate against. And just bombing Iran would not cause a rebellion but rather would cause the Iranian people to rally behind their government, the US would need to send the troops in for regime change, and then face a better armed, financed and planned rebellion than the US is facing in Iraq except in a much larger area with a much larger population that has not been weakened by sanctions.
Like I said, you may be right. We'll see.
One other thing. The additional protocols are additional protocols. They have to be ratified or they are not applicable, the way the Kyoto Global Warming treaty is not applicable on the US. It is not a violation of the NPT to deny inspections required by the additional protocols unless and until a country ratifies those protocols. And it is not a violation of the NPT to fail to ratify those protocols.
Today there are no facilities to which the IAEA has requested access under Iran's voluntary provisional acceptance of the additional protocols that the IAEA was denied access.
Iran has a pretty strong case that the West is attempting to deny its legitimate rights and is making unreasonable demands. So it will be hard to isolate Iran. Russia, China and the Non-Aligned movement will continue to support Iran.
So if the US has a military option that would work, I'd be interested to see it. From what I'm reading the Iranians do not think the US has such an option.
If there is no workable military option, which you must admit is possible, then all that is left is European sanctions that would force Iran to buy technology from Russia, China and India. That is a bad thing for Iran, but Iran would survive, especially with oil at its current prices.
you don';t get it:
itran IS in violation of the NPT.
there MUIST be consequences.
we are in an INCREASINGLY GOOD position to inflict those consequences. a variety of them.
including military.
any setback to oil market would be temoporary.
the gain for world freeedom, peace and security would worth it.
iran has NO legitamte right to lie and cheat.
sure: if they want, they can withdraw from the NPT. fine.
then we go to plan b.
REPEAT: your insistence that they are not viloationg any NPT treaty is BIZARRE to the point of ridiculousness.
iran LIED for 20 yeasr in all its filings with the IAEA in relation to its NPT obligations. lieing itself - filing fasle statements, and having hidden nuclear programs is a DIRECT VIOLATION.
there is NOTHIGn comlicated about this.
your are a dumbasshshitheadmoron or a paid dupe, or a willing dupe.
all suck.
buh-byee.
There are three things the latest resolution says Iran must do to avoid being referred to the security council:
1 - Stop uranium conversion
2 - Allow access to people beyond the Additional Protocol requirements
3 - Stop building a heavy water reactor
Of those three things, none is required by the NPT or by the additional protocols that Iran is voluntarily observing for now.
That's why the US will not get support in trying to impose those new conditions. Isolation of Iran will not work because the US is asking for things Iran does not have any legal responsiblity to give.
So what's left is US military options. After military options, we are more likely to see a pro-Iran regime change in Iraq than we are to see a pro-US regime change in Iran. At least that's what I'm gathering.
Like I said, I can't predict the future. You may be right.
lookit:
Iran LIED and filed FASLE reports to the IAEA in direct violation of the NPT.
they violated NPT continuously for 20 years.
the steps you list above are in response to the IRANBIAN VIOLATIONS.
if those steps son;t work - if Iran, as a soverign nation, declines,
THE THEY WILL FACE REPERCUSSIONS, justifiably so.
becasue they VI(IOLATED the NPT TREATY! For 20 years.
GET IT!?
Those repercussion may inlcude trade sanctions, and might lead to
a massive missile strike, and then WAR.
or,it might just mean that they will face stepped up efforts to overthrow the corrupt, racist, genocidal islamofascists who run Iran.
i BELIEVE that we will dal with Syria FIRST.
and them solidify our gains in Iraq BEFORE we move aggressively (on either the diplomatic or martial fronts) against Iran
Assad will be "indicted" for murdering Harari on 10/25.
That wi9ll have VERYT SERUIOUS EFFECTS ON Syria and the region.
I belive it will lead to regimne change. One that will help Iraq.
10/15 is th constitrutional vote in Iraqw - and 12/15 is the election.
We will wait unbtil these events are done, too - before forcing the Iranian crisi to the brink.
that's why i FEEL that the Iranian confrontation will NOT be brought to a heads until BEGINBNING in January and culminating in the summer.
with a massive missile strike - which destroys all their nuke assets ands their military assets -probably in june.
this will not be "shiock & awe" and will NOT be a prelude to an invasion.
it will be a reprisal which wioll unlaterally enforce a UNSC res requring iran diosmantle the nuke assets which they lied about having.
these sanctions will come about regardless ofd whether iran withdraws from the NPOT or not.
WHY!?
becasue the free world will NOLT allow an Iran run by islamofasists who openly call for genocide get nukes.
at the oputside, bush MIGHT wait until spring 2007 - so that a VER^ UNPOPULAR preemptive strike against Iran doesn't effect the GOP control of Congress.
THIS IS NOT MERELY A PAROCHIAL PARTISAN CONCERN!
If the Democrats get back control of Congress, then we should expect that they will pull the plug on Iraq and afghanistan just as they did to the Vietnamese.
That would be horrible.
buh-BYEE!
endless number of these wonderful finds, what with the Internet being a vast network of constantly evolving ideas and all!
Post a Comment