.
.
From What Really Happened some simple clarifying points, over and above the hype from Israel and its agents of war in the USA:
1. You are not going to get more UN sanctions against Iran: Russia and China won't let this happen.
2. Iran is not building a nuclear bomb.
3. As a signatory to the NNPT, Iran's nuclear program is under IAEA inspection, since 2003, with go anywhere, see anything spot inspections in Iran.
4. IAEA has found neither missing nuclear material, nor any nuclear enrichment beyond the 20% necessary for creating medical isotopes, since they started their work in 2003.
4. To create a nuclear weapon, there must be enrichment of over 90%. A credible delivery system which is reliable, ballistic long distance missiles, and the technology to put the nuclear warhead into the missile.
5. Per the revelations of Mordechai Vannunu in the late 80s, coupled with admissions in statements by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former US President Jimmy Carter, Israel has nuclear weapons.
6. Israel refuses to sign the NNPT, and therefore will not allow inspections of its nuclear facilities.
7. The "rogue nation" here is not Iran, but Israel.
8.................Israel has nuclear weapons, refuses to sign the NNPT, and therefore refuses any IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities.I've written about this before, as it is a topical area.
The puppet mullah regime installed by the USA/UK/FRANCE/Israel in 1979 is in a dilemma.
They have allowed the IAEA since 2003, to go any where see anything on the spot inspections in Iran. No nation on earth displays such openness and cooperation with the IAEA, for so long without gaining a conclusive end to such inspections. Only Saddam's Iraq displayed such openness to the IAEA, and UN inspections, but only after being castrated after the 1991 Gulf War............at the end of which Iraq STILL faced an invasion in 2003 based on fraudulent information and more lies from the USA/UK.(Niger Yellow Cake, mobile WMD labs; Saddam ready with his WMD's in 45 minutes; Saddam and "al-Qaeda")
The mullahs dilemma is this. The longer they continue with these inspection by the IAEA, greater the suspicions which will grow that Iran is indeed up to something. The IAEA'S work, subsequent International chatter and inconclusive narrative and reports can be twisted by the relevant people to create suspicion, as happened recently. On the other hand if Iran finally says to the IAEA, "OK you've had enough time to determine whether or not we are indeed following the NNPT guidelines as per our obligations, time you people went"........then the Israelis will scream......"The mullah's are building nuke bombs!"
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The IAEA was established by the USA in the 1950's to ensure the safe expansion of nuclear technology around the world. It was to be an International watch dog for the global community, neutrally and objectively carrying out its work of assisting nations around the world with nuclear technology. Noble sentiments which unfortunately as with most great ideas came up against the fundamental problem of human failings. Naturally great powers wishing to spy on other nations should want to fill the IAEA ranks with their "experts", and that their influence would be greater than shall we say, then that of more neutral nations such as Norway.
Consequently the IAEA failed with several obvious and very critical nations which subsequently developed nuclear weapons.
Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned Aparthied South Africa's nuclear bomb program established with Israel from the 1960's.
Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned Aparthied Israel's nuclear bomb program established with the help of the UK, France and Norway? from the 1950's.
Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned Pakistan's nuclear bomb program established from the 1970's.
Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned India's nuclear bomb program established from the 1960's.
Therefore the IAEA never inspected, detected, highlighted or questioned nuclear bomb "SURGE" programs of a few countries around the world in the present.
Yes you miss a few, but what the heck!
Is the IAEA based in Vienna neutral? One thinks not, ultimately-------yes its all very objective, thorough, scientific, filled with a multi-national team of experts, who use scientific technical jargon rather than rhetoric....., BUT given the above examples, its role very often is to legitimate great power politics in subtle ways, rather than to act as a truly global International organization working for the bests interests of all.
Thats where the casual remarks of the new head of the IAEA comes in that overall biased narrative. After all why can't the IAEA clearly state that after thoroughly inspecting Iran since 2003 with go any where and see anything on the spot inspections the IAEA is finally fully satisfied that Iran is indeed not building nuclear bombs.....................but as yet they haven't and they won't. The IAEA, and only the IAEA have left the door of suspicion slightly open to be twisted by Israel, and its shill agents in the USA, and else where:
"This charge against the IAEA is not without justification. The IAEA played a major role in the continuation of the USraeli instigated UN sanctions against Iraq, sanctions which ultimately destroyed the country and made it more vulnerable to outside aggression. Also, as I have written previously for CounterPunch, in the past few years the IAEA has been under severe pressure by USrael to repeat for Iran what it did in the case of Iraq: namely, to bring about UN imposed sanctions against Iran by reporting it to the UN Security Council for non-compliance of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agreement. So far, the IAEA has not been able to provide the "smoking gun" that USrael needs to move on Iran. That is, despite numerous "sightings of illegal nuclear activities" in Iran by USraelis and their US-Iraq based "good terrorist" organization (MKO), various visits by the IAEA to the Iranian nuclear facilities, and more intrusive inspections, the IAEA has been unable to prove that Iranian nuclear activity has a military dimension or that Iran has an active policy of developing nuclear weapons. Yet, even though there has been no "smoking gun," the IAEA, under the weight of USrael, is exerting greater pressure on Iran to stop even the kind of nuclear research and development that the country is entitled to and are legally allowed under the NPT." Sasan Fayazmanesh
The IAEA was established by the Eisenhower government in the 1950's to safely regulate the civilian nuclear industry, as more and more countries sought to use nuclear power. Naturally hyper sensitive Israel realized that such an organization could be an excellent cover for espionage work against potentially hostile nations and their peaceful nuclear programs. Thus from the 1950's Israeli intelligence has developed close relations with the IAEA. In fact many of its operatives are Israeli intelligence operatives. The same is true of many Western intelligence agencies, such as Germany, USA, France and so forth:
From Scott Ritters book target Iran
IAEA-Israel Nexus
“Israeli intelligence teams would often travel to Vienna, and rendezvous with IAEA personnel in hotel rooms used as impromptu safe houses. On the issue of Iraq, the Israelis had established a similar level of cooperation with the IAEA’s Iraq Action Team…The relationship involved not only the provision by Israel to the IAEA of intelligence information, but also placing at the disposal of the IAEA the extensive resources of Israel’s intelligence analytical community, where the IAEA could pose question to selected technical experts, or have the results of inspections or other intelligence data reviewed by the Israelis. This relationship…operated with the expressed permission of the Director General… [emphasis added] (p. 49)
"Thanks to the IAEA inspections, the United States (and Israel) had extremely detailed intelligence on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program… (p. 147)
"The IAEA has no moral authority to check Iran’s peaceful nuclear development, when it has done nothing to raise attention to, let alone prevent, Israel’s aggressive nuclear program”
I am saying the IAEA is not merely a nuclear inspections organization, but a covert military intelligence gathering organization which works for the USA/Israel/UK.
That personnel in the IAEA are mainly individuals who work for foreign intelligence agencies--- as shown when Scott Ritter and David Kay later openly revealed after they had finished their work in Iraq, as UN inspectors who worked with an Israeli team of four using fake Australian passports to inspect Iraq's landscape.
Germans Spying for Israel
“Many Germans secretly supported the Israeli position concerning the deed for a preemptive strike. German intelligence agents, operating under economic cover, had been inside Iran for years, often times in support of joint German-Israeli mission objectives…...............So even while German diplomats negotiated in support of an incentives-based approach towards resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis, German intelligence officials secretly hedged their bets towards an American-backed effort to undermine and overthrow the regime of the Mullahs” (pp. 154-155. Target Iran: The Truth about the US plans for regime change )
Military homing devices and other pathfinder equipment used to mark out all strategic and military sites in Iran for a possible military attack as was done against Iraq.
1.http://www.linkspoint.com/wsj.html
2.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979STIN...8011441N
3.http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier1.htm
Bolton’s Incestuous Israel Connection
One determinant of the hardline US stance against Iran has been the personal initiative of the former Undersecretary of State, and Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. Ritter writes:
When it came to defining what constituted the national interest, John Bolton, like many of his neoconservative colleagues, seemed to possess a decidedly split personality, especially when it came to maters involving the state of Israel…Bolton has developed a strong relationship with Israel, one that had him undermine official U.S. policy by keeping policy papers critical of Israeli actions from crossing the desk of the Secretary of State as Bolton did early on in the tenure in the administration of George W. Bush, blocking a memo which suggested that Israel had violated American laws with its July 23, 2000, assassination of Salah Shehada, a senior Hamas activist in Gaza City. Israel reportedly used an American-made F-16 fighter-bomber to drop a bomb on a house in the Gaza Strip, killing Shehada and fourteen others (including women and children), and injuring more than 100 others. In his position as undersecretary of State, Bolton has engaged in numerous one-on-one meetings with Israeli officials without getting prior country clearance from the relevant offices within the State Department. Bolton frequently travels to Israel, where he has developed a strong relationship with Israeli intelligence officials, again outside of official bureaucratic channels… (p. 141)
On May 22, 2006, at a B’nai B’rith breakfast meeting in which John Bolton had already spoken, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman declared Bolton to be the sixth Israeli diplomat assigned to the United Nations. Gillerman also noted that if the B’nai B’rith membership, historically unquestioningly pro-Israeli, were counted, the Israeli Mission would in fact be one of the largest at the United Nations. (p. 208)
EU-3 as Chamberlain
German, Britain and France were behaving in a manner that was strikingly similar to the behavior of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when he backed down over Hitler’s demands over the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. In an effort to forestall another American illegal war of aggression, the Europeans were negotiating with Iran to convince the Iranians to give up a nuclear program that operated demonstrably within the framework of international law. Europe committed to the principle of Iranian legal rights regarding the enrichment of uranium, all the while caving in to pressure from the United States to deny Iran this right. (p. 163)
MeK: The Israel Connection
When Israel’s early attempts to sell the Irani WMD threat failed to gain traction in Washington, despite Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer’s personal lobbying (George Tenet rejected the intel casting doubt on its credibility), the Israelis looked for a new conduit for their intelligence that would “spur America to take that threat posed by Iran [sic] more seriously.”
Sobhani [an Iranian con-artist] and CDI [Committee for a Democratic Iran, an AIPAC spinoff] provided an ideal solution, namely that the Israeli government use Reza Pahlavi as the mouthpiece for telling the world about what the Iranians were up to in the field of nuclear weapons, and in exchange Pahlavi would be given immediate credibility and with it front runner status in the race of those trying to rule Iran post-Mullah. Unfortunately for the Israelis and CDI, Reza Pahlavi balked…Undeterred, [Michael] Ledeen and the CDI turned to the MEK, or more specifically, its political front in the Washington, D.C., the NCRI, as the next best option to bring the Israeli intelligence to center stage. CDI reportedly lobbied the NCRI representative, Alireza Jaferzadeh, to serve as the mouthpiece for presenting the Israeli intelligence to the general public…Israeli intelligence had maintained a relationship with the MEK that dated back to the mid-1990s. (p. xxv)
Thus all Israeli intelligence, most of dubious quality, was presented to the American public, and the rest of the world, through a third-party, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the political wing of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.
"But there is a more compelling reason why Iran should not comply with IAEA demands: the body has been pressuring Iran, a country that is a signatory to the NPT and has been following its rules to the letter, under pressure from Israel, a country that hasn’t signed the NPT, posesses a massive thermonuclear arsenal, and is the biggest violator of UN Security Council resolutions. More egregiously, IAEA has been passing the information collected during inspections to the Israeli intelligence (both in the case of Iraq and Iran" Fantonite.org
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about similarities or differences you see between the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and what’s happening now with Iran?
SCOTT RITTER: The biggest similarity that we need to point out is that in both cases no evidence was put forward to sustain the allegations that are being made. Iraq was accused of having weapons of mass destruction programs, reconstituting chemical, biological, nuclear, long-range ballistic missile programs. There was an inspection process in place that had access, full access to the facilities in question, and no data was derived from these inspections that backed up the Bush administration’s allegations. And yet, Iraq was told, it’s not up to the inspectors to find the weapons. It’s up to Iraq to prove they don’t exist. Iraq had to prove a negative. And they couldn’t. We now know that in 1991, Saddam Hussein had destroyed the totality of his weapons programs. There weren’t any left to find, discover. There was no threat.
We now have Iran. It’s alleged to have a nuclear weapons program. And yet the International Atomic Energy Agency, the inspectors who have had full access to the sites in Iran, have come out and said, “Well, we can’t say that there isn’t a secret program that we don’t know about. What we can say, as a direct result of our investigations, there is no data whatsoever to sustain the Bush administration’s claims that there is a nuclear weapons program.” (dubious inconclusive language that incites suspicion from the usual quarters-----and they are at it again in 2010) And yet, the Bush administration once again is putting the onus on Iran, saying, “It’s not up to the inspectors to find the nuclear weapons program. It’s up to the Iranians to prove that one doesn’t exist.” Why do we go down this path? Because you can’t prove a negative. There’s nothing Iran can do that will satisfy the Bush administration, because the policy at the end of the day is not about nonproliferation, it’s not about disarmament. It’s about regime change. And all the Bush administration wants to do is to create the conditions that support their ultimate objective of military intervention.
___________________________________
New IAEA Chief Uses Last Week’s ‘Technical Violation’ to Raise Fears of Iran’s Nuclear Program
Last Week's 'Annoyance' Is This Week's Grave Danger
by Jason Ditz at Antiwar.comA new report issued by the IAEA today rehashed complaints about what was referred to as a minor, technical violation last week, and declared that it “raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Early last week Iran began enrichment of uranium to 20 percent in an attempt to find a new source of fuel for its Tehran Research Reactor, a US-built reactor which produces isotopes for medical purposes.
Officials at the IAEA last week expressed “annoyance” that Iran had moved forward with the program so quickly, insisting that Iran was obliged to delay the start until changes were made to the safeguards agreement. Iran moved forward with the plan anyhow, in what analysts referred to as a “technical” violation.
The IAEA’s new report, issued by new chief Yukiya Amano, uses only this “technical violation” as justification for its speculation about the intention of Iran’s nuclear program, and the claims about a “nuclear payload for a missile” don’t appear to be backed up by any evidence, seemingly only included for shock value.
Though last week’s report on the technical violation stressed that IAEA officials were “irked” by the move, it seems incredible that Secretary General Amano would use what seems to have been a trivial annoyance to fan the fuels of speculation about a covert nuclear program particularly when he himself confirmed previously that the IAEA has absolutely no evidence Iran was seeking nuclear weapons. It is doubly troubling that such a statement would be issued when Western officials are raising the specter of a military attack against Iran.
Despite the sensational language used in the IAEA statement, Iran continues to enrich uranium mostly at 3.5 percent, with a smaller program at 20 percent. A nuclear payload would require enrichment of above 90 percent. The IAEA has continued to verify that Iran is not diverting any of this uranium to any undisclosed purpose. Today’s announcement, alarmist though it may be, appears to be nothing more than a spite move by the IAEA after Iran thumbed their nose at official procedure, and does not represent any real threat.
_______________________________
