Realism

Paul Heroux's Huffington Post apology for attacking Iran

2012-02-01T20:47:00.001-08:00

This article, although pretending to be well-reasoned is just one more case of Zionist propaganda against Muslim countries. The West, having drawn the "line in the sand", which is Israel, must work very, very hard to protect their investment above all safety and reason.

What is my evidence that this article is so over the top as to constitute a case of outright propaganda? First the claim that Iran is intransigent regarding the IAEA. It is not, and is cooperating with the IAEA, industriously. One need only read Section A of the latest IAEA Board of Governer's Report to realize this. In addition, Iran has pledged to continue working with the IAEA during the current special mission, which is ongoing. So is Iran instransigent regarding the IAEA? Absolutely not, and the evidence provided by the IAEA proves that it is not with all of Iran's energy and fuel generating stations under regular monitoring and surveillance by that organization.

Mr. Heroux states the painfully obvious, that, "Iran has the right under international law to a peaceful nuclear program (Iran signed the NPT) but considering that it is a very little step to go from nuclear energy to nuclear weapons has a lot of people worried. This boils down to an issue of trust." However, the West has clearly violated that trust beyond all credibility by hurting Iran's economy and imposing sanctions. The sanctions clearly show that Iran's willingness to refrain from developing weapons and submit to inspections is not working, and that it would logically be better off to protect its assets and future the best way it is capable of. The ambiguousness proposed by Mr Heroux is not a proper option. It merely incites the entire world to take sides and propels us towards a possible future Cold War II.

Why am I absolutely sure Mr. Heroux is a Zionist? Because he posted this comment, "When Israel struck Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2006, respectively, the strikes were effective in that neither country developed a nuclear program." Israel is widely believed to be the sixth country to have developed nuclear weapons, according to Wikipedia and other sources. There was never any need for Israel to develop a nuclear program in 2006, since they already had many warheads. The irony in this statement is extremely funny. Israel prepared itself for nuclear victory long before any regional threat emerged against it. This is the "real" reason the 6-day war was so abortive. However, in truth, Israel's neighbors dwarf it. If these neighbors were motivated, not merely interested, in attacking Israel, they could, simply by occupying it. This is the ugly fact against Zionism's threats so often made against other countries. Could Israel (pop. 7.5M) launch its missiles and destroy much of the World? Sure it could, but it would at the same time, no longer exist if it were occupied by some of the much larger countries, which surround it. These are the real facts of the situation, not facts of Religion, nor facts about imagined weaponry. The United States is in a similar situation. We can, if we like pretty much destroy the entire World. We just need to be motivated. The only escape from this paradigm is to renounce the weapons. But, as in the case of Golem's Ring, we are addicted to them.

Finally, there is the "Blame Iran" argument, "Iran is likely to continue to have an antagonistic policy towards the West, a stance that is reciprocated towards Iran." 1956 saw the overthrow of Iran's democratic government and its replacement by a "Shah". Such interference in other nation's matters hardly ever occurs, but it did in the case of the U.S. vs. Iran, and they have a hard time forgetting it. Iran has taken plenty of opportunities to strengthen ties with the West, but where has it got them?

The absolute ugliness of the stories' pretext that that we are "Iran's victims" is horrible. Iran is the country hurt by Heroux' sanctions, and we would be better off by not punishing nations, but pursuing world peace by allowing all nations to survive peacefully and unmolested. Regardless of Heroux's misplacing the victim in the frog allegory, we must not allow our Xenophobia to force us into becoming such monsters as he is describing.

The Islamic Republic and the IAEA Swill

2011-12-17T15:59:00.000-08:00

Hello, I've been away for a while, but I have a bone to pickthis week. I noticed on the Republican debate that Ron Paul denounced IAEA Board of Governor’s statement , so I wanted toread it myself.http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

I think this document, based on the "Alleged StudiesDocumentation", provided to the IAEA by Israel, more than any other I'veseen, shows how the process works here: The incredibly rich will always try touse the incredibly influential to influence the attitudes of the common person.

Here is the IAEA board of governers, baking a half-truthfulaccount of how Iran has cooperated fully with them in almost every aspect oftheir work in recent years, and then presenting a weak attempt at updatingIsrael's old case that the fact that they were involved in nuclear weapons workin 2003 must prove that somehow they must still be doing it.

I can go into more details, but the bias of Section C andthe Annex speaks for itself. Section A basically shows how the Iran has playedby the rules and has had relatively good success in its nuclear development.The last parts of the document relies heavily on fallacy, and generally triesto force the point that having evidence of activity in the past is sufficientground for eternal and infinite suspicion. The coup de gras, forme, though is the final graphic, which basically digests all thesuspicion-based and unproven points made in the document regardinghigh-technology for nuclear or dual-use either developed in Iran, or taughtabout in Iranian Universities, such as fluid dynamics, and compares them withmajor defense-related non-nuclear weapons applications. My point about thisgraphic is that it is not a graphic about high technology for defense, it is agraphic that only deals with a few technologies which relate to nuclearweapons, therefore, the non-nuclear intersections are therefore guaranteed to be few.

I think this document has proven to me, more than any otherI have seen, how money always follows politics and information, and you willalways have individuals willing to make any kind of statement, or case, nomatter how baseless, in order to influence common people to invest their bloodand treasure in warfare, even against people who are not threatening and eventhough the benefits never outweigh the costs nor the risks. The only positiveside in this is always profit, and only for those with a large enough share ofthe wealth to benefit well, the 1%.

Iranium

2011-02-08T11:28:00.000-08:00

I saw Iranium (the movie). It was basically a talking head/pot boiler anti-Iran and anti-Islam statement that contrasts the American and Israeli nut jobs (the good guys) against Iranian politicians past and present (the bad guys).

Things I liked about it are: Since it is openly pro-America/Israel, it doesn't try to make the Shah into a saint, like some anti-Iranian films I've seen do, and the film tells the truth about practically every nation in the world preferring Iran to the US/Israel axis, at least on the principle that they are good guys and don't interfere with other countries.

The film also doesn't claim that Israel is that great; it merely states that Iran is so evil, that America should go to war with it by itself. On the negative side, besides only representing the views of the whack jobs, the film substitutes facts and footage from Al-Queda style terrorism in other countries (not even Shia) as substantiating their claims against Iran. I love the fact that one of the "Death to America" chants near the end was all women, while the film tries to make the case that Islam and Iran are anti-female.

The film is so one-sided, that it may actually recruit more whack jobs, but on the other hand it might also be a good hoot for people who know who these whack jobs are and understand the motivations and history behind American foreign policy.

The State of the Union Address

2010-01-31T01:21:00.000-08:00

I think that President Obama did a lot of talking about what will occur over the next year and the problems confronting us as a nation. For me it was gratifying to have a president that was in command of so many facts and who understood the importance of each of these issues. What he said was an accomplishment was an accomplishment, in my opinion, but the majority of the speech was about the problems America needs to face now, and can't afford to ignore through partisan bickering.

I believe the spending cuts will result in an additional $130 billion dollars per year off the deficit for three years, based on my own calculations. I'm sure the net result can be estimated differently by different people, but the CBO will be coming out with its figures for the Congress sometime soon. If you don't like the president's proposal, it is like you believe nothing is better than something, which as a realist and not a defeatist, I simply can't believe in.

The curtain is not closed on health care reform. We will see plenty of action on this, and even if the Republicans are successful in their denial strategy, a filibuster will not stop passage of a final bill in the Senate.

In routes like Los Angeles to San Fransisco, driving is not a good alternative - it takes all day to drive. The bullet train is needed badly. Not having it as part of our infrastructure cripples our future. The states know the economy the best, and they are crying for it.

Student loan forgiveness is subsidized education, that's all. Dropping the loans after a period of good payment, is not only an incentive to make the payments, but an improvement in our higher education. I realize it's typical for a Conservative to say, "If I had to pay, everyone should always pay," but times change and so does the importance of higher education to our economy. We have an "intelligence infrastructure", which in the future will need more careful tending by our government than it has in the past.

I don't think that the State of the Union was a perfect moment, but taken together with his bipartisan initiative, it is like a "perfect storm" of movement, speech and intention to help our country in it's time of need.

Not Moscow, but not Iran either

2009-09-12T11:47:00.000-07:00

Jeffrey Mankoff has indicated that Russia's position in regards to Iran has hardened and the US should now lay off them to become more effective (The Road to Tehran Does Not Lead Through Moscow http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-mankoff/the-road-to-tehran-does-n_b_284458.html). While this singular fact may be true, the article if full of other distortions and outright lies about the facts pertaining to Iran.

When Mohamed ElBaradei said "breakout capacity", he meant that Iran would, for the first time, have the ability to become self-sufficient in their nuclear fuel cycle, not anything more sinister, as Mankoff intimates. This is only how the most recent in a long chain of articles attacking Iran for imaginary nuclear weapons construction and deployment begins. The lie to this disproved assertion, which is being echoed over and over by U.S. Think tanks and pundits has been challenged by ElBaradei most recently during his statement to the IAEA Board of Governors on September 7, "I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member States, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith." There are no nukes, no nuclear weapons development, only lies, and distortions by those paid by government and the media.

The United States and its P6 partners get not one benefit from pursuing this ceaseless attack on Iran and its imaginary nukes, but two - the often essential political and economic benefits of pleasing the pro-Israel lobby, and keeping open the door to a possible 2nd Cold War and the immense defense income and profits that could derive from it. The economic stranglehold the pro-Israel lobby holds over U.S. and European Union politicians combined with the prospects of a continuation of the profitable Cold War, means that we will not likely see an end of this 21st century fantasy for a long time. Remember, we have over 3,000 nukes not being built, but currently deployed and waiting.

Fortunately, Iran has called the P6’s bluff and their serious call for a world free of nuclear arms http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=34271, submitted in their 5-page document, has a possibility of being heeded, if only Mankoff and his friends only don’t succeed in covering it up.

2009-09-08T14:12:00.000-07:00

The FP Article, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/04/why_moscow_wont_stand_between_tehran_and_its_nukes makes transparent the ultimate goal of establishment foreign policy thinktanks such as CFR. The purpose of the policy of placing pressure on Iran at all costs, despite the evidence that Iran is not interested in building a nuclear weapon, is to restart the Cold War and all the profits it can bring.

"... the absence of effective international action on Iran's nuclear program ... will cause countries throughout Europe and the Middle East again to turn to the United States for protection and leadership."

This is not the kind of foreign policy we want or what we should have. The Obama Presidency should leave a legacy of International Relations free of Cold War tensions and war-mongering.

The Health Care Unplanning of the Wall Street Journal

2009-08-14T13:43:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal is flying colors again attacking Health Care Reform. The fact that factions like the WSJ, the Insurance Lobby, and the Republican Party are attacking President Obama is because he is leading the change. This is 2009. America just voted for change, and now we have all the unhappy factions wishing they could turn back the clock and using any means necessary to try to "make it so".

Of course the changes include things like better care and service for the elderly, based on medical reports on what the elderly actually want and need. Well, let’s scare them out of wanting these changes; that should be easy! All we have to do is convince them that if they get better care, it will have to be rationed. Of course – what a stroke of genius! Because they really don't deserve the care, do they? No American does. We'll just make it look like striving for a better health care system, is like striving for a better nation, it can only make things worse!

This is the "common sense" of the WSJ and the factions. We are not into scare tactics! We are the Responsible Press, and the Conservative Responsible Republican Party! They are the Usurpers. We should not allow them to improve the lives of anyone, and how dare they save the economy! Did we ask them to? Hell no! The presumptiousness of limiting CEO salaries and bonuses! We will nip this Obama problem in the bud – by any means necessary!

We will tell people that the reformers are using too many non-political entities to control health care, and then write an editorial explaining that government control of health care means that the government must pay for health care. No matter how many safeguards are built into the system, we will insist that the government will rule with an iron hand, regardless if this is true for most other nations with government run plans. We will insist that because this is America, a large nation, we will fail if we rationalize any part of our economy! We are Republicans and we are smart and we know that stuff!

As the article mentions, Obama points out that an alarming amount of rationing is occurring in America today. The WSJ counters that restriction occurs in European Universal Health Care countries. The only difference must be that their babies and seniors aren’t dying as much as ours do. This fact alone should prove that even if there is some rationing in those countries it is not done as randomly as it occurs here.

The WSJ and the factions cherrypick facts to make foreign plans and Medicare look bad.: The French have limited CT-SCAN’s and MRI’s, without mentioning that they are limited throughout Europe for HEALTH REASONS. Medicare doesn’t pay for Virtual Colonoscopies, without mentioning that VC’s, while attractive to patients, are not the prefered procedure. Why in this issue is the WSJ a complete source of misinformation? And then, the coup de gras, the WSJ plays dumb, mentioning that Medicare cost is growing, one of the main indicators driving reform, and proposes that we fix it instead, by offering competitive plans (instead of repairing delivery, as President Obama proposes). Medicare already has competitive plans, but the plans offered by the insurance companies cost both, the seniors and the taxpayers much more than the option offered by government.

The final accusation, aimed partially at AARP, is made to sound like a indictment on all health care reform based on the fact that a publicly finianced Health Care component is part of President Obama’s system. But Medicare already is, and must continue to be, a publicly financed component, and the WSJ won’t explain why it is that Medicare recipients have the most hassle –free service in the U.S. today. I guess this would have something to do with not wanting reform, not wanting public anything, not even roads and drinking fountains, and being so complacent with the status quo and whatever the distribution of wealth happens to be at this moment in time, that any improvements leading to a better society had better be avoided like the plague.

Reply to WSJ Why U.S. Diplomacy Will Fail With Iran

2009-08-12T06:06:00.000-07:00

This is my comment on Why U.S. Diplomacy Will Fail With Iran by Edward N. Luttwak.

Edward Luttwak doesn’t miss a beat here in relating all of Iran’s politics, history and policies to the US and Israel. Neither does he fail us for an instance in imagining that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s political dominance in many areas of Iraq could not be overwhelming, even aginst a strident, naive, psuedo-reformist opponent such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi. What all this right-wing analysis so au current in the press fails to appreciate is that while Mousavi is well to the left of Ahmadinejad is several respects, his positions are much less acceptable to the dominant right wing of Iran’s clergy than even Ahmadinejad’s, who is also seen by them as a potentially dangerous progressive. Another weakness in this analysis is that neither Mohammad Khatami nor Ahmadinejad were “chosen” by Ayatollah Khameni, as Mr. Luttwak alledges. Regardless of their strict control of media and the police, the fact is the Iranian clergy are still operating a type of theocratic democracy, no matter how lunatic it may appear to outsiders in love with their own democratic systems.

Add into the mix, Mr. Luttwak’s complete historical reinvention of the details of Operation Ajax, the incredible coup against Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953, and you have seen the value the neoconservative movement in America today. What we have here is exactly the view that Iran is anti-American, and anti-Israel, because, well, they’re bad, instead of recognizing that Iran is possibly, and continues to be, the the number one victim of America’s continuing plots to control it and many other countries in the middle east, and the recipient of continuing threats from Israel, a country well-known for its clashes with bordering peoples and military surgical strikes against “common enemies”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that America is “bad” either - it’s just that all belligerent countries are considered badly by their opposing belligerent countries. The main implied assertion by Luttwak that Iran “needs” the US to be an enemy is not at all substatiated: Remember when we were all “Imperialists”, and how quickly that changed once dialogue became possible?

I think I can do Mr. Luttwak one better in his analysis of the 2009 elections. Mir-Hossein Mousavi is, as we know, an old hand in Iranian politics, having served as prime minister of an almost completely totalitarian government from 1981 to 1989. The fact that he was available to oppose the phlegmatic and problematic Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2009 shows strong signs of being an “inside job”. The fact that he was allowed to stay under house arrest and maintain claims of election racketeering and stir up dissent on his website while 3,000 of his supporters were arrested, and in many cases, tortured or abused, also looks very fishy. It is still not clear whether he himself will be charged by his old cronies.

Mr. Luttwak wants to return to the good old days of sanctions, threats, and even better, nevertheless he doesn’t take into account is that our perception of Iran is based on our own sociological assumptions about their role in the world, based in turn, here, on the neoconservative world view. What is much superior, is Mr. Obama’s position of staying open to dialogue, and possibly achieve important gains for the Iranian people and ourselves. Even if Iran’s plans to develop nuclear energy are countered prematurely by Israel, or a combination of Israel and America, Iran will not suffer; it will, like Hezbollah, merely impose on its opponent whatever it perceives as a necessary countermeasure, damaging our interests, and sink back into the anti-American, anti-Israel morass it is in even deeper. This is the nature of limited war and sanctions: The opponent never really gets to change their position and appears to be the eternal enemy. Barack Obama’s Iran policy is the exact opposite and carries the possibility of transformation.

Ahmadinejad speech at the Durbin Racism Conference 4/20/2009

2009-04-21T10:55:00.000-07:00

His Excellency Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke yesterday at the Durbin Conference, news media around the world reported the walkout, with a quote or two supporting the reason for the walkout. But as usual, yours truly wishes to report what was actually said. It's true that the main part of the speech was a diatribe against the long history of oppression in the world, pretty much from the institution of Christianity forward. Ahmadinejad feels that it is important to acknowledge this oppression, and reform our international political and financial institutions before we can be free to eliminate racism. In this way, the action part of his program sounds reminiscent of what we have heard from the pro-peace wing of the American Libertarian Party, although the LP would concern themselves much less with international issues.

I have transcribed the English translation of the last, positive, part of his speech below, since, while everyone may not agree with it, it is an important view about how collective will can lead to a better world, and a plea for peace. I have included the entire video, demonstrations and all. If you read my transcription first, you'll gain better insight into the purpose and significance to the disruptions on the video.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the world is going through fundamental changes. Rapid fundamental changes. How the relations have become so weak and fragile. The sound of cracks in the pillars of world oppression can now be heard.

Major political and economic structures are at the brink of
collapse. Political and security crises are on the rise. The worsening crisis in the world economy, for which there can be seen no bright prospect, amply demonstrates the rising tide of far-reaching global changes.

I have repeatedly emphasized the need to change the wrong direction through which the world is being managed today, and I have also warned of the dire consequences of any delay in this crucial responsibility. Now, in this august and valuable event, I would like to announce to all leaders, thinkers, and to all nations of the world present in this meeting, and those who have a hunger for peace, economic well-being, that the (in)equitable and (in)just management of the world is at the end of the road. This deadlock was inevitable, since the logic of this imposed management was oppressive. The logic of collective management of world affairs is based on noble aspirations, which centers on human beings and the supremacy of almighty God, therefore, it defies any policy or plan which goes against the well-being of nations.

Victory of the right over the wrong, and establishment of a just world system have been promised by the almighty god and his messengers, and it has been a shared goal of all human beings from different societies and generations in the course of history. Realization of such a future depends on the creation and a belief in the hajj (gathering) of all the faithful.

The making of a global society is, in fact the accomplishment of a noble goal heralding the establishment of a common global system that will be run with the participation of all nations of the world in all major and basic decision making processes, and the major proof of this sublime goal, scientific and technical capacities, as well as communication technologies have created a common and wider-spread understanding of the world society and has provided the necessary ground for a common system.

Now it is incumbent upon all intellectuals, thinkers and policy makers in the world to carry out their historical responsibility with firm belief to this definite root, I also want to lay emphasis that, the western liberalism and capitalism, like communism, has reached to its end, and since it has failed to perceive the world and humanity as it is. It has imposed its own goals and directions on human beings with no regard for human and divine values, justice, freedom, love, or brotherhood, has based the living on an intensive confrontation, secure individual and collective material interest.

Now we must learn from the past by initiating collective efforts in dealing with present challenges, and in this connection, and in closing my remarks, I wish to draw your kind attention to two important points.

One, it is absolutely possible to improve the existing situation in the world. However, it must be noted that this could only be achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of the existing capacities and resources in the world.

My participation in this conference is because of my conviction to these important issues as well as to our common responsibility of defending the rights of all nations vis a vis the sinister phenomenon of racism, and being with you, the thinkers of the world.

Two, Mindful of the efficacy of the current international, political and economic security systems on the world scene, it is necessary to focus on the divine and humanitarian values, and by referring to the true definition of human beings, and based upon justice, and respect for the rights of all people, in all parts of the world, and by acknowledging the past wrongdoings in the past dominant management of the world, undertake collective measures to reform the existing structures. In this respect, it is crucially important to reform rapidly the structure of the security council, including the elimination of the discriminatory veto right, and change the current world’s financial and monetary systems. It is evident that lack of understanding of the urgency for change is equivalent to the much heavier cost of delay.

Dear friends, beware that to move in direction of justice and dignity is like the natural and rapid flow of a river’s current. Let us not forget the essence of love and affection, the promised bright future of human beings is a great asset that may serve our purpose in keeping us together to build a new world, and to make it a better place, full of love, fraternity and blessings, a world devoid of poverty and hatred, meriting the increasing blessings of God almighty, and the righteous managing of the perfect human being.

Let us all join hands in amity in playing our share in fulfillment of such a decent,
new world.

I thank you Mr. President, Secretary General, and all distinguished participants for having the patience to listen to me. Thank you very much.

I would love to hear from anyone who speaks Farsi, to revise my transcript, since it is only based on a real time translation at the conference.

It will be interesting to evaluate how much Ahmadinejad's influence multiplies through this conference and in the future. What we saw in the demonstrations yesterday, was the the sides are definitely set and divided, with America, Europe and Israel on one side and most other nations on the other. In a small sense, this is the neoconservative's dream. To isolate all muslim nations against the "western world". However, it is not being accomplished neatly, although the liberal media is doing all they can to block out the Ahmadinejad's actual point of view. I'll be reporting on the first part of his speech tomorrow, and perhaps have a chance to comment in more depth.

This is the link to the entire video: http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/conferences/DurbanConference/2009/durban090420pm1-eng.rm?start=00:05:30&end=00:39:30

Here is a link to the page the video was on: http://un.org/webcast/durbanreview/archive.asp?go=090420

What Iran Said

2008-08-06T19:50:00.000-07:00

There have been a lot of articles posted recently about what some spokespeople, who were party to the lynching of Iran in the United Nations Security Council, otherwise known as Resolution 1803, had to say, or are saying. It is difficult to find the statements or even the name, Mohammad Khazaee, of Iran's Permanent Representative to the UN among the press clippings, at least in the United States.

Iran has had plenty of opportunity to comment on the situation post-Resolution 1803, and what I am presenting here are the reports from that meeting, about what Ambassador Khazaee said.

At the outset of the meeting, Iran’s representative said: “Today’s action of some members of the Security Council against Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme, along with the measures taken in this regard in the past, do not meet the minimum standards of legitimacy and legality.” Iran’s nuclear programme had been and would remain absolutely peaceful and in no way posed any threat to international peace and security. It, therefore, did not fall within the Council’s purview. The peaceful nature of his country’s nuclear programme had been confirmed by each and every IAEA report in the past several years.

By resolving the outstanding issues with regard to Iran’s past activities on the one hand, and conducting all its present activities, including the enrichment, under the full and continuous monitoring of the Agency, the country had removed any so-called “concerns” or “ambiguities” with regard to its peaceful nuclear activities in the past and at present, he said.

He said the Council’s behaviour in undermining the credibility and integrity of the Agency would only serve the interests of those who preferred to ignore IAEA, such as the Israeli regime, which, with hundreds of nuclear warheads in its possession, posed the most serious threat to international and regional peace and security. The future security of the world depended on how the United Nations, and especially the Security Council, functioned in a just and impartial manner. In reality, peoples across the globe had now lost their trust in the Council and considered its actions the result of political pressure exerted by a few Powers to advance their own agendas.
SECURITY COUNCIL TIGHTENS RESTRICTIONS ON IRAN’S PROLIFERATION-SENSITIVE NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES, INCREASES VIGILANCE OVER IRANIAN BANKS, HAS STATES INSPECT CARGO

The first paragraph deals with the illegality and illigitimacy of the UN action in a fairly straightforward way. The second paragraph, a statement negating “concerns” or “ambiguities” could be contested. Obviously if Iran expects to reprocess fuel, as they have stated, there is a certain ambiguity inherent in the technology itself. Iran wants to publish and use secondary materials based on Uranium processing for medical and scientific benefit and has stated it is not interested in military use of plutonium or other biproducts. It is the International Atomic Energy Agency's job to verify this, and Iran has shown a willingness to cooperate with that agency. The only damning issue for the IAEA is transparency regarding certain "alleged studies", which Irans says are "forged" or "fabricated".

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.
IAEA Board Report, 26 May 2008

Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director, has chosen here to keep the ball in his court. He has chosen language, that while not blaming Iran, has the effect of increasing the amount of tension between Iran and the IAEA. The reason he has chosen to do this, is because of the claims made on the IAEA by members to investigate certain highly classified activities. At this time it is unknown whether these issues, whether they turn out to be frivolous, fabricated, true or even relevant, will ever be fully exposed by any of the parties.

However the secretness of these documents, in itself, makes them a poor claim to legitimacy by either the Six Nations, or the UN Security Council, which seems to be operating as an international rubber stamp for the 6 core operatives, consisting of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United States, which just joined. They have taken the nickname, "P5+1", which seems to imply that the US retains the right to drop out again if it likes. There is no question that while "negotiating" without the US, the other 5 nations were always primarily acting as agent for the US and one of its allies, Israel, which has weaved between calling for the sanctions against Iran, whom they consider their enemy, calling for the U.S. to attack Iran, and making threats to strategically bomb Iran's facilities themselves. As a result of this campaign, Iranian officials and the United States officials have been involved in a war of words about potential strategies and outcomes projecting the possibility of an all-out military attack on Iran.

Back in February 22, 2008, a letter to the Secretary-General and Council President from the Ambassador Khazaee made the case for an IAEA-only solution to the crisis, quite eloquently.

In it, the Ambassador writes that the latest report of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General of 22 February (GOV/2008/4) declares the full implementation of the work plan concluded between Iran and IAEA in August 2007 (INFCIRC/711) and, thus, resolution and closure of all outstanding issues. The Director General had stressed that “the Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings” and “considers those questions no longer outstanding”. The report also clearly attests to the “exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme”, both in the past and at present.

He writes that the consideration of Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme was imposed on the Council by certain countries out of “mere political motivations and narrow national interests and on the basis of certain pretexts and allegations, which have been totally baseless”. The full implementation of the work plan has eliminated those pretexts and allegations. The current and other reports show that Iran is committed to its international obligations and, at the same time, persistent in pursuing and exercising its legal and inalienable rights.

He further states in his letter that, according to the IAEA report, the Agency had recently received from Iran additional information similar to that which Iran had previously provided, pursuant to the Additional Protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as well as updated design information. Iran had provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and had provided relevant reports. It had also provided access to individuals in response to the Agency’s requests.

It had now become clear, says Iran’s Permanent Representative, that the country’s peaceful nuclear issue should be dealt with by the Agency as the sole pertinent international organization and that safeguards implementation in Iran had to be “in a routine manner from now on”. Further, “the Security Council should avoid inflicting more damage to the credibility and authority of IAEA, as well as its own credibility, by persisting in further illegal and illogical engagement and actions pursued by few countries,” he writes.
SECURITY COUNCIL TIGHTENS RESTRICTIONS

And finally, here is Ambassador Khazaee's closing statement at the meeting, probably the most eloquent of all:

MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE ( Iran) said: “Today’s action of some members of the Security Council against Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme, along with the measures taken in this regard in the past, do not meet the minimum standards of legitimacy and legality.” Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme had been brought to the Council in violation of the [International Atomic Energy Agency’s] statute; Iran had not violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. It had signed the Additional Protocol in 2003 and had begun its voluntary implementation, which it was not supposed to have begun implementing prior to 2003. In addition, Iran was only obliged to inform IAEA 180 days prior to feeding nuclear material into facilities, but it had informed the Agency about the uranium conversion facility four years prior to its operation in 2004, and also four years before Iran had been obliged to do so.

He said Iran’s nuclear programme had been, and would remain, absolutely peaceful, and in no way posed any threat to international peace and security. It, therefore, did not fall within the Council’s purview. The peaceful nature of his country’s nuclear programme had been confirmed by each and every IAEA report in the past several years. On the basis of ideological and strategic grounds, Iran categorically rejected the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons, as well as of all other weapons of mass destruction, and it was a leader in international efforts to oppose such weapons. The IAEA Director General had stressed in various statements that “the Agency does not have any data or evidence indicating that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons” and that there was “no evidence Iran’s enrichment of uranium is intended for a military nuclear programme”.

The outstanding issues were now resolved and closed, he stressed. The co-sponsors of today’s resolution had argued in the past that the Council should be involved due to unresolved outstanding questions. However, Iran had concluded a work plan with IAEA in August 2007 to address and resolve the outstanding issues. The conclusion of the work plan had been described as “a significant step forward” by the Director General. The co-sponsors of today’s resolution had spared no efforts to hamper its successful implementation. The Agency’s 22 February report, however, had “clearly declared the resolution and closure of all outstanding issues”. The Director General had said after the report’s release, “we managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran’s enrichment programme”.

By resolving the outstanding issues with regard to Iran’s past activities on the one hand, and conducting all its present activities, including the enrichment, under the full and continuous monitoring of IAEA, the country had removed any so-called “concerns” or “ambiguities” with regard to its peaceful nuclear activities in the past and at present, Mr. Khazaee said. Those who had resorted to a systematic and relentless campaign of false claims, propaganda, intimidation and pressure aimed at IAEA had prompted one of its senior officials to stress that “since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that’s come to us [from the United States] has proved to be wrong”. A well-organized and pre-planned propaganda campaign had begun even before the release of the latest IAEA report, in order to eclipse Iran’s resolving outstanding issues.

He said the full implementation of the work plan, and thus resolution and closure of the outstanding issues, had eliminated the most basic pretexts and allegations, on the basis of which Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme had been referred to the Council. “ Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme should be dealt with solely by the Agency.”

Addressing the suspension issue, he said that Iran could not and would not accept a requirement that was legally defective and politically coercive. Neither in the IAEA’s statute, nor in the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s safeguards, not even in the Additional Protocol, were “enrichment” and “reprocessing” prohibited. There was not even a limit for the level of enrichment. Voluntary suspension had been in place for more than two years in Iran and that had been verified. It had become clear, however, that those insisting on suspension had indeed aimed to prolong and ultimately perpetuate it, and thus deprive Iran from exercising its inalienable rights. The attempt to make the suspension mandatory through the Council, from the outset, had violated the fundamental principles of international law, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA Board of Governors’ resolutions.

He said the Council’s decision to coerce Iran into suspension had also been a gross violation of the United Nations Charter’s Article 25. The Council could not coerce countries into submitting either to its decisions taken in bad faith or to its demands negating the fundamental purposes and principles of the Charter. Iran needed to enrich uranium to provide fuel for the nuclear reactors it was planning to build to meet the growing energy needs. There had never been guarantees that those fuel needs would be provided fully by foreign sources. No country could solely rely on others to provide it with the technology and materials that were vital for its development and for the welfare of its people.

As a representative of a founding Member of the United Nations, he expressed “grave concern and dismay regarding the path that the Security Council has chosen and pursued”. The Council should be a secure and safe place where the rights of nations, not only were not violated, but were fully respected. A question arose as to why, after all the crimes of the Zionist regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had had been described as ethnic cleansing, genocide and war crimes by the international community, the Council had failed to put an end to those crimes. Recalling the Council’s inaction after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980, he said “no amount of explanation would be able to describe the disastrous consequences of these unacceptable behaviours of the Security Council”.

The Council’s behaviour in undermining the credibility and integrity of IAEA would only serve the interests of those who preferred to ignore the Agency, such as the Israeli regime, which, with hundreds of nuclear warheads in its possession, posed the most serious threat to international and regional peace and security. “Is it not time for the Council to respect the judgement of an institution that is part of the UN system? Or to respect the legitimate rights of a great nation with a long history of civilization and peaceful coexistence with other nations?” he asked. The future security of the world depended on how the United Nations, and especially the Security Council, functioned in a just and impartial manner. In reality, peoples across the globe had now lost their trust in the Council and considered its actions the result of political pressure exerted by a few Powers to advance their own agendas.
SECURITY COUNCIL TIGHTENS RESTRICTIONS

Just why Mohammad Khazaee's beautiful prose and more importantly, why all of his points and arguments seem to be completely missing from English-language news sources is the key question that needs to be answered in the disturbing saga of the Six Nations plus the Security Council vs. Iran.

The 6 Nations, the United Nations, and the Quest for Nuclear Fire

2008-08-06T02:49:00.000-07:00

It would seem that Iran should have the right to process Nuclear Fuel for peaceful purposes. That these purposes should remain peaceful is a matter controlled by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and its investigative arm, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Both the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, but not Israel (a nuclear power in the Mideast) are signatories to the NPT.

Iran's rights to process fuel under supervision are protected under
the NPT Article IV. It does seem that the U.S. might be a teeny tiny bit delinquent under Article VI though, since the U.S. (as a Nuclear Weapons State) has about 4,000 nukes left.

Article I:[10] Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

So why does the IAEA not let Iran off the hook? (For that matter, why have they let the U.S. off the hook on Article VI, which demands "complete" disarmament?) I show from recent documents, and essential archives, that this is not the case. The IAEA has made "significant progress", as they have reported in May, 2008. The Security Council Resolution 1803 and the Letter and Proposals from the 6-Nations group are both quite at odds with this though. They paint a bleak picture, and impose further sanctions on the 30-year old nation. The only way out is reported as "suspension of nuclear fuel enrichment", something the IAEA, the organization responsible for verifying the peacefulness of Iran's program, has not called for in their May Governor's Report.

As you can see from the report, the Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.

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. The so-called alleged studies remain a matter of serious concern.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2008/ebsp2008n005.html#iran

Why does ElBaradei call these "so-called alleged studies"? What are the so-called alleged studies, and who created them? We read on from the same document:

Iran maintains that it has never had a nuclear weapons programme and that the documents related to these alleged studies are "forged" or "fabricated". In this context, I should note that the Agency received much of the information concerning the alleged studies only in electronic form and it was unfortunately not authorized to provide copies to Iran.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2008/ebsp2008n005.html#iran

So the accusations are non-verifiable and non-transparent communications from guess which spy-countries? What does this remind you of? This is clearly top-drawer Iraq War/Dick Cheney stuff. It is apparent that only with the best of luck and good administration will ElBaradei and company navigate the traps that have been set up for him by the "alleged studies" nations.

Now we come to the role played by the United Nations Security Council, which has passed at least 4 resolution pertaining to nuclear power in Iran. The latest resolution is number 1803, in which virtually none of the claims that are made against Iran are true. Starting with the usual hoidy-toidy, it meanders on to this last reasonable paragraph:

Recalling the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors (GOV/2006/14), which states that a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global
non-proliferation efforts and to realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery,
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/257/81/PDF/N0825781.pdf?OpenElement

The paragraph that follows is essentially a confirmation that 1. Iran has not caved in to demands to shut down its nuclear industry, and 2. a big pack of lies and canards about issues that either don't exist, or no longer exist.

Iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747 (2007), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors,
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/257/81/PDF/N0825781.pdf?OpenElement

The paragraph about "design information" is completely contradicted by the IAEA Governer's Report - which is foolishly unmentioned in the Security Council Resolution, except in the dissenting comments among some of the participants.

7. On 13 May 2008, the Agency carried out design information verification at the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) and noted that construction of the facility was ongoing. The Agency has continued to monitor the status of the Heavy Water Production Plant using satellite imagery.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf

Virtually none of the claims in the 1803 Resolution are true, they are mostly a rehash of the previous language. Nor are the claims substantial; here is the text of the ballyhooed Article 39, for example:

The Government of Iran and the Agency shall make Subsidiary Arrangements which shall specify in detail, to the extent necessary to permit the Agency to fulfill its responsibilities under this Agreement in an effective and efficient manner, how the procedures laid down in this Agreement are to be applied. The Subsidiary Arrangements may be extended or changed by agreement between the Government of Iran and the Agency without amendment of this Agreement.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf

So why did they vote against Iran and seemingly against the IAEA's report? Some of the points made in the South African Representative's report were echoed in other speeches:

DUMISANI S. KUMALO ( South Africa) regretted that the sponsors of the resolution persisted with the same text they had tabled before the IAEA Director General’s report. The resolution appeared not to adequately take into account the progress that had been made between Iran and the Agency. Adoption of the new resolution could not even be postponed until the IAEA Board had had a full opportunity to consider the matter. That left the impression that the verification work and progress made by the Agency was virtually irrelevant to the co-sponsors.

He said the rationale to bring the issue to the Council was to reinforce the decisions of the Agency and enhance its authority, yet the resolution did not accurately reflect what was happening at the Agency. He was seriously concerned about the implications of that for the Security Council’s credibility, and the only reason South Africa supported the resolution was to preserve the unanimity behind previous Council decisions.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9268.doc.htm

"Preserve ... unanimity" was mentioned by a number of other members of the Security Council as reasons for their votes, so we can only conclude that unfortunately, the Security Council members would have made great Stalinists, had they only been born sooner.

What is at issue for Iran is clear: The Council Resolutions largely call for Iran to Suspend enrichment processing of Uranium, a technology that feel is their right and a central part of their nuclear industry, as their main objective. As a matter of fact, the 6-party group has promised that if Iran only cooperates with them on their terms, it will get some of its nuclear rights back sometime in the future.

For their part China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States state their readiness: ... to treat Iran's nuclear program in the same manner as any Non-nuclear Weapons State Party to the NPT once international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme is restored.
June 12, 2008 6-party Proposals
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2008/infcirc730.pdf

This exposes the threatening nature of the 6-party's position, that their opinion and purpose is that Iran should lose its right to process nuclear material (in other words, freeze a part of its economy) and should not again achieve it until an unknown future time, at which "international confidence" (read, the 6-parties' - or should we read, Israel's?) is deemed to be restored.

For the meantime, however the Security Council has demanded that Iran relinquish these rights, and Iran has expressed complete confidence in its defensive capability and it's willingness to fight a war, if necessary, as a means to preserve its pride and sovereignty on this issue.

So what we have here is a belligerent Israel and the U.S. both making threats (each at its own level) to attack Iran, now a powerful sovereign and independent nation, the IAEA trying to do its work, while being hampered by Catch-22 style disagreements between international spy agencies and the Islamic Republic of Iran, while the UN Security Council loses credibility as the gopher for Israel and the US (not to mention the credibility that the U.S. loses to its own constituents and the world as the water-carrier in chief for Israel), and the Islamic Republic of Iran (not unlike Israel), basically continues on enjoying its membership in the "cool-weapon-of-the-month club", while developing the peaceful nuclear technology it insists on having.

The only way out of this impasse is for the UN Security Council and 6-nation group to withdraw its demand for a suspension of Iran's nuclear industry, and restrain themselves from trying to imposing unreachable accords (Unreachable accords being those which are clearly in the interest of one party, and clearly against the interest of the other.) and simply allow the IAEA to do its job, while demanding that Iran become and remain verifiably free of nuclear weapons, at least as long as it remains under the NPT.

All of the 6-Nations countries must realize that the earth is not just for its own use; that other nations, even newer ones, are going to demand their autonomy and sovereignty above all else, just as we would. To avoid war, all of these parties must learn that acting peacefully and reasonably will get more done than a whole lot of bluster and ballast. The mentality or ideology that some countries are "good" for having weapons and other countries are "bad", for the same reason, which now seems to have a hammerlock on the Security Council, must be abandoned. Certainly, in the US, if not most of these nations, electing officials that don't put the demands of other governments above the needs of their own constituents will be a strong step in the right direction.