Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?


View Poll Results: Oil Sanction
Is the West right to impose sanctions -Morally -Legally 5 29.41%
Is the West wrong to impose sanctions-Morally -Legally 4 23.53%
Will this cause War 1 5.88%
Will this force/persuade Iran to negotiate Nuke Program 1 5.88%
Iran will find other markets-India-China etc 7 41.18%
This will lower the price for Iranian Oil exports 3 17.65%
Is this a positive step by the West 7 41.18%
Is this a negative step by the West 3 17.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

darkbeaver
#181
If we examine the literal acts of war as per the rules book with respect to the dirt already done by all sides we should be able to tell that this war has already spilled lots of blood, it's already an old dirty war. Our illustrious state media is late as usual. It must be plugged with wrenches.
 
MHz
#182
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

An article I was reading this morning regarded the cause of the present Israeli angst is Iran having already some time ago developed a fully operable deterrent to Israeli first strikes by means of blanket conventional long range missile systems..The author explained that Dimona was already an achievable kill 100 per cent certain. That would be the end of Israel.

Iran would still be better off in only playing the defensive card. Even if it took 3 weeks for the International community to reach a complaining stage and Israel going the extra week just so it could finish with the cluster bombs when they attacked Lebanon and Gaza they can only keep up an attack that long before running out of steam and look at cease-fires as being the way to go. Taking out the facility that has already produced all the bombs Israel will ever need is not an objective that should be high on any 'defensive plan'. Making all their needed missions over the territory of Iran as hard as possible would be their best way to hope in winning the war, spending energy hitting places you have no hope of ever controling is just burning up energy needlessly. Time for them to do some rope-a-dope. (while denying the US air superiority)
 
darkbeaver
#183
And the best defense is offense, ultimately, especially so with such a dishonourable enemy as Israel,total victory is the only defense. For all intents and purposes Israel is the International Community.
 
MHz
#184
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I really don't understand all this dick waving going on over there. Nobody would survive a war. I'm pretty sure nothing is as bad as we are being told. It is like the cold war. The international bankers own every country and they play this game to scare the crap out of everybody so they can pick their pockets while they are hiding under their beds. The so called middle east crisis is just the cold war warmed up, repackaged and sold to s gullible herd of sheeple.

What I don't understand is why you would say you don't understand something and then go on to describe how it actually works. It is like the cold war because that is what war replaced the cold one. In theory the hardware that we had the first year of the cold war is the same hardware we should have had for the last year of that same war if there had been no (successful or not) attacks in that same period of time. To upgrade hardware that is already doing it's job is a waste of time and money. No matter how advanced war becomes it still boils down to who has the most standing at the end of the battles.

Which is cheaper in the long run, go to perpetual war to secure the energy needs of the future or change consumption to match what you can output using the same amount of money that would have been used in the alternative one where keeping a war machine running is not an option. A change such as burying insulated boxes that have air circulated through them during the coldest parts of the seasons so it can be released during the warmer parts of the season and that reduces energy consumption over a yearly cycle and it forever frees future generations from depending on access to foreign oil in order to stay cool on a hot summer day. (another insulated box could be used to capture heat on the warmest summer days for release on the coldest winter nights further reducing dependence on foreign oil and so far you need two shipping containers that could be buried under the gargage floor of any house and charging the cells and discharging them would be very inexpensive as even solar powered motors could be used. Built on the outside of foundations is an alternative for retro fitting existing structures as well as new home construction. In new developments where single houses are close to their borders two properties could even 'share' that space so that each house would have the largest heat sink possible) Depending where you live just running some piping along the same route the pipes for an auto lawn sprinkler take would give you a supply of cool air (70deg) throughout the summer, Size of pipe, distance and airflow would all be factors on effective it would be, if it keeps you from running an AC you are saving energy and staying cool at the same time for less money.

Combine something like the above with other innovations and the need for large amounts of (readily available) oli doesn't have it at the top of the list of reasons to go to war which always costs more than it brings in.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

And the best defense is offense, ultimately, especially so with such a dishonourable enemy as Israel,total victory is the only defense. For all intents and purposes Israel is the International Community.

Do you know what rope-a-dope is?
 
earth_as_one
#185
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

What do we do, wait until they have a atomic weapon or stop them by any means from having the capability to build them? ...


The first thing to do is stop believing all the unproven claims and unsubstantiated allegations made about Iran and focus on the known facts.

Right now, you are believing Iran could do this or could do that. Sure Iran could do a lot of things, but just because they could do something doesn't mean they are doing it.

Yes its possible Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program.... but how likely is that?

Iran has uranium mines, but they are closely monitored and the IAEA has stated with a high degree of confidence that no material is being diverted. So Iran would have to be get uranium for a covert nuclear weapon program from somewhere else. How likely is it that Iran could import uranium without detection? We are talking hundreds of tons of radioactive yellow cake...

The research required to build nuclear weapons follows a parallel path with the research required to develop peaceful nuclear technology.... up to a point. In the case of nuclear enrichment, that point is 20% HEU... a limit Iran has respected. In theory a nuclear weapon could be constructed with more than 20% HEU, but to be practical and useful, the fissionable components would need to be at least 90% HEU or recovered plutonium. Iran has neither and stated that they don't intend to cross this threshold. I don't trust anyone's word, but hiding this material and the factories required to refine uranium or process plutonium would be damn near impossible. The IAEA would have found something by now... and that hasn't happened. So its pretty safe to safe Iran doesn't have this capability, even though they have the mastered the required technology.

Let's assume for argument's sake, that Iran has a covert weapons program and has successfully kept it hidden from IAEA inspectors... Enriching uranium releases easily detected isotopes into the atmosphere. The amount of these isotopes released by Iran, can be used to calculate the amount of uranium that Iran has enriched. The US and other nations (Russia, China...) constantly monitor the level of these isotopes and none of these nations have reported any proof that Iran is enriching more uranium than what they've declared. The US and other nations have an NPT obligation to report to the IAEA any evidence they have regarding a covert nuclear weapon programs. So far no one has reported that they can prove Iran is enriching more uranium than what they've declared... Which means that the US knows Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon program, or they know they do have a covert nuclear weapon program and have made not that information public or reported it to the IAEA as per their NPT obligations. Which scenario is more likely?

IMO, the US knows definitively that Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon program. So read the news with that in mind and consider what are these people selling?

If the US is deliberately lying about Iran and using these lies to apply punitive sanctions against Iran... IMO, this is about softening Iran up to the point where they can be successfully invaded and occupied. This is a replay of the same tricks the US used to soften up Iraq and convince people through fear to support an unprovoked war, which in the case of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and made millions homeless refugees.

Sorry, but I'm not buying what the US/Israeli and their allies are selling. If you are buying what they are selling based on irrational fear and unsubstantiated allegations and support yet another unprovoked war, then you are partly responsible for the consequences of their war crimes.

Don't you have enough Iraqi blood on your hands already?
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 6th, 2012 at 12:09 PM..
 
darkbeaver
#186
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

What I don't understand is why you would say you don't understand something and then go on to describe how it actually works. It is like the cold war because that is what war replaced the cold one. In theory the hardware that we had the first year of the cold war is the same hardware we should have had for the last year of that same war if there had been no (successful or not) attacks in that same period of time. To upgrade hardware that is already doing it's job is a waste of time and money. No matter how advanced war becomes it still boils down to who has the most standing at the end of the battles.
Which is cheaper in the long run, go to perpetual war to secure the energy needs of the future or change consumption to match what you can output using the same amount of money that would have been used in the alternative one where keeping a war machine running is not an option. A change such as burying insulated boxes that have air circulated through them during the coldest parts of the seasons so it can be released during the warmer parts of the season and that reduces energy consumption over a yearly cycle and it forever frees future generations from depending on access to foreign oil in order to stay cool on a hot summer day. (another insulated box could be used to capture heat on the warmest summer days for release on the coldest winter nights further reducing dependence on foreign oil and so far you need two shipping containers that could be buried under...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Rope a dope gets you parkinsons in the end.. You don't see the same desperation of the west to have a war that I see. The big war is the filth of the earths one successful survival tool, and they must happen if the international rubbish is to continue its rule.
 
Goober
+1
#187
[QUOTE=earth_as_one;1529799][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]
The first thing to do is stop believing all the unproven claims and unsubstantiated allegations made about Iran and focus on the known facts.

Right now, you are believing Iran could do this or could do that. Sure Iran could do a lot of things, but just because they could do something doesn't mean they are doing it.

Yes its possible Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program.... but how likely is that?

Iran has uranium mines, but they are closely monitored and the IAEA has stated with a high degree of confidence that no material is being diverted. So Iran would have to be get uranium for a covert nuclear weapon program from somewhere else. How likely is it that Iran could import uranium without detection? We are talking hundreds of tons of radioactive yellow cake...

QUOTE]

Did the IAEA not make reference to Iran's attempting to acquire uranium? The IAEA has legitimate concerns but now that they disagree with your mindset they are just puppets.
 
ironsides
#188
Just days after Iranian and American military officials traded warnings over a U.S. Navy vessel's departure from the Persian Gulf, the United States Navy has rescued 13 Iranian fishermen from Somali pirates in the Arabian sea. And in a side irony that punctuates the rare instance of Iranian-American co-operation, the rescue operation was carried out by the very U.S. Navy aircraft carrier strike group that Iranian army officials had earlier boasted of evicting from Gulf waters.



Amid tensions, U.S. Navy rescues Iranians from Somali pirates | The Envoy - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post


The first thing to do is stop believing all the unproven claims and unsubstantiated allegations made about Iran and focus on the known facts.
Right now, you are believing Iran could do this or could do that. Sure Iran could do a lot of things, but just because they could do something doesn't mean they are doing it.
Yes its possible Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program.... but how likely is that?
Iran has uranium mines, but they are closely monitored and the IAEA has stated with a high degree of confidence that no material is being diverted. So Iran would have to be get uranium for a covert nuclear weapon program from somewhere else. How likely is it that Iran could import uranium without detection? We are talking hundreds of tons of radioactive yellow cake...
The research required to build nuclear weapons follows a parallel path with the research required to develop peaceful nuclear technology.... up to a point. In the case of nuclear...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post

No.
"IMO, the US knows definitively that Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon program. So read the news with that in mind and consider what are these people selling?

If the US is deliberately lying about Iran and using these lies to apply punitive sanctions against Iran... IMO, this is about softening Iran up to the point where they can be successfully invaded and occupied. This is a replay of the same tricks the US used to soften up Iraq and convince people through fear to support an unprovoked war, which in the case of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and made millions homeless refugees."


You just answered the two possibilities. First of all we know for sure that Iran is working to create their own nuclear weapons. (that rod they made serves no other purpose)


Is the U.S. trying to soften up Iran that is always possibility. There are many Iranians only to glad to help over throw the government all they need is to be given the right time and opportunity. The U.S. can never physically invade Iran, it was never a scenario. (to large a population about 78 million) maybe it is time for the House of Pahlavi to return and re-institute a Constitutional monarchy again.

(external - login to view)
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
 
Goober
#189
Of those that answered the West was morally / legally wrong to impose sanctions. I would only expect only one of those to have a reasoned opinion. And one voted both sides of the fence.
 
Goober
#190
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Of those that answered the West was morally / legally wrong to impose sanctions. I would only expect only one of those to have a reasoned opinion. And one voted both sides of the fence.

Still no answer. Makes a man wonder it does.
 
Cliffy
+1
#191
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Still no answer. Makes a man wonder it does.

If you want an answer, it is customary to pose a question.
 
MHz
#192
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Just days after Iranian and American military officials traded warnings over a U.S. Navy vessel's departure from the Persian Gulf, the United States Navy has rescued 13 Iranian fishermen from Somali pirates in the Arabian sea. And in a side irony that punctuates the rare instance of Iranian-American co-operation, the rescue operation was carried out by the very U.S. Navy aircraft carrier strike group that Iranian army officials had earlier boasted of evicting from Gulf waters.


The northern Arabian Sea is well south of the Persian Gulf as it is even further south than the Gulf of Oman. Are you saying the release took place north of the Strait? In a hypothetical situation could the Iranian navy be able to stop any vessel in the Persian Gulf or operate in the Arabian Sea doing the same, even chasing pirates all the way to Somalia. Any word on how many boats got stopped before and after? Far as I know Iran has no claim to wanting to be the law in international waters south of the Strait. I'm sure Canada would put up some protest if attempts were made to declare most of Hudson's Bay as being International Waters and as such warships from any Nation can park there for as long as they like. Let Iran rule over the Persian Gulf, America still has a way to monitor the traffic from the Arabian Sea. Why keep ships confined to an area that is within range from any part of the coast, let alone a major land port in Bahrain that could never be defended if hostilities ever broke out. Carriers and the support need the room of the open ocean be be fully effective and not being found is one of the best defenses there is short of running away so you can fight another day.

American deserves credit, it should also be a wake-up call that she and her boats are needed in that part of the waters rather than making waves in what is basically a big Bay of San Fransisco. They can use the existing bases that are a complete island miles and miles away from anybody else making reloading much safer than could be done in the Persian Gulf waterway.




Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Still no answer. Makes a man wonder it does.

What does it make a man wonder?
 
earth_as_one
#193
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

...First of all we know for sure that Iran is working to create their own nuclear weapons. (that rod they made serves no other purpose)...

1) Who is "we". I certainly am unaware of any evidence that proves Iran is working to create their own nuclear weapons. The IAEA also has no proof that Iran is building nukes. You must know something they don't. I suggest you contact them and inform them of what you know, since you obviously know something they don't. What I know is that case for the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon program is similar to the case for Iraq's WMD stockpiles. BTW, how is the search for Iraq's WMD stockpiles coming?
Out Nation Betrayed: The Iraq WMD Intelligence Deception (external - login to view)

You must have felt pretty gullible after falling for that lie which started an unprovoked war and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Do you care to express any remorse or sympathy for all those senseless deaths?

2) The fuel rod that Iran recently fabricated and inserted in the core of a nuclear reactor was not above the 20% HEU NPT limit. Yes the fuel rod could be used to make weapons grade fissionable material, after extensive reprocessing. Iran could do this, except all their enriched uranium including this fuel rod are closely monitored and could not be covertly diverted to a secret reprocessing plant without the IAEA inspectors noticing.
 
Goober
#194
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

1) Who is "we". I certainly am unaware of any evidence that proves Iran is working to create their own nuclear weapons. The IAEA also has no proof that Iran is building nukes. You must know something they don't. I suggest you contact them and inform them of what you know, since you obviously know something they don't. What I know is that case for the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon program is similar to the case for Iraq's WMD stockpiles. BTW, how is the search for Iraq's WMD stockpiles coming?
Out Nation Betrayed: The Iraq WMD Intelligence Deception (external - login to view)
.


The IAEA ia still waiting for information that clarifies the differing stories, submissions, evidence that is contradictory.

And as you are 100 % sure that Iran does not have a covert Nuke Wpns Program, I suggest that you provide this evidence to the IAEA. I am sure they would be interested as to how you arrived at that conclusion.
You could even let us in on that big secret.
 
ironsides
#195
Another threat? They will never learn.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has begun uranium enrichment at a new underground site well protected from possible airstrikes, a leading hardline newspaper reported Sunday in another show of defiance against Western pressure to rein in Tehran's nuclear program.
Another newspaper quoted a senior commander of the powerful Revolutionary Guard force as saying Tehran's leadership has decided to order the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic oil route, if the country's petroleum exports are blocked. Revolutionary Guard ground forces also staged war games in eastern Iran in an apparent display of resolve against U.S. forces just over the border in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/report-iran-begins-uranium-enrichment-082830683.html (external - login to view)
 
earth_as_one
#196
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

The IAEA ia still waiting for information that clarifies the differing stories, submissions, evidence that is contradictory.

And as you are 100 % sure that Iran does not have a covert Nuke Wpns Program, I suggest that you provide this evidence to the IAEA. I am sure they would be interested as to how you arrived at that conclusion.
You could even let us in on that big secret.

You seem to not understand two points of logic.

1) To avoid convicting innocent people, the burden of proof must be on the accuser to prove guilt, rather than the accused to prove innocence. If the onus is on the accused to prove innocence, then anyone sleeping by themselves could be convicted for any murder which occurs in the middle of the night.

Accuser to the Accused: "Where were you last night at 3AM when the murder occurred?"
Accused to the Accuser: "I was home in bed sleeping."
Accuser: "Can you prove this? Do you have any witnesses?
Accused: "I was alone. No one can verify I was alone at home sleeping."
Accuser: "Can you prove you did not commit the murder?"
Accused: "No I cannot even prove I was alone in bed sleeping when the murder occurred, which is where I was at the time of the murder"
Accuser: "Since you can't prove your innocence, you must be guilty"

The problem with placing the burden of proof on the accused is that innocent people can be easily convicted of crimes they did not commit. Therefore the burden of proof must always be on the accuser to prove guilt and never on the accused to prove innocence.

The US, Israel and their allies have accused Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. But they have no proof to support their allegations. You erroneously believe that Iran has to prove they aren't building nukes, when its the Americans and Israelis who have to prove Iran is making nuclear weapons.

If you still don't understand my point, then try assuming for a moment that its a fact that Iran isn't building nukes. OK, so how do the Iranians prove they aren't making nuclear weapons. What proof exists that they aren't building nukes? As we saw in the case of Iraq's alleged WMD stockpiles, not finding anything after searching Iraq from one end to the other only meant that the Iraqis were hiding their WMD stockpiles and being dishonest rather than proving that Iraq's WMDs stockpiles did not exist.

Iran could also let the IAEA search the Iran from one end to the other and not finding anything would still prove nothing. The US and Israel would still allege Iran has a covert nuclear weapon program and are not cooperating with UN inspectors, just like they did regarding Iraq's alleged WMD stockpiles.

Another potential problem with UN inspections, is that their objectivity can be compromised. In 1998, US and other western spies infiltrated UNSCOM and abused their access to Iraq to spy on Iraq's legal defense systems. Later, the US and UK used that illegally collected intel to destroy Iraq's legal defenses during Desert Fox.

Unlike the allegations against Iran regarding their nuclear program, these allegations of US spies in UNSCOM are supported by evidence:
UN 'spied on Iraq' | World news | The Guardian (external - login to view)
Washingtonpost.com: U.S. Spied on Iraq Via U.N. (external - login to view)
UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk (external - login to view)

2) Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. The US invaded and occupied Iraq, because they could not prove they did not have WMD stockpiles. As we all know, Iraq didn't have any WMD stockpiles and yet they attacked anyway. Iraq could no more prove they did not have WMDs than they could prove they weren't hiding aliens, Sasquatch, Ogo Pogo and God... Proving the non-existence of anything is logically impossible and it would be ridiculous to insist someone do this.


Recently the IAEA has made statements indicating that they also expect Iran to prove a negative:
“The Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.”

Of course the IAEA can't do this. Proving a negative is a logical impossibility and the IAEA making such a statement may indicate that IAEA objectivity has been compromised, just like UNSCOM was back in 1998.

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Another threat? They will never learn.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has begun uranium enrichment at a new underground site well protected from possible airstrikes, a leading hardline newspaper reported Sunday in another show of defiance against Western pressure to rein in Tehran's nuclear program....

http://news.yahoo.com/report-iran-begins-uranium-enrichment-082830683.html (external - login to view)

At a site that Iran declared over a year ago, in compliance with one of the additional voluntary confidence building NPT protocols that Iran did ratify.

I suggest you get an informed opinion based on critical thought. This interview might be helpful:

Iran, Israel and the US: who’s threatening who?

by David J. Franco and Shirin Shafaie (source: InPEC (external - login to view)) Wednesday, December 28, 2011
InPEC has conducted this interview with Shirin Shafaie at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. Shirin Shafaie is an Iranian researcher and PhD candidate at SOAS. She was educated in Iran (BA in Philosophy and MA in Philosophy of Art) and in the UK (MSc in Middle East Politics). The core of her research is critical war studies in general and the Iran-Iraq War in particular.The links in the answers are added by Shafaie.

Franco: Good morning Miss Shafaie and welcome to a conversation with InPEC. In an interview conceded to Iranicum (external - login to view)[1] (external - login to view) in August 2011 you stated that ‘the IAEA has confirmed time and again that Iran is enriching uranium only to the levels it has stated and more importantly that no declared nuclear material has ever been diverted to military use in Iran’. The latest report released by the IAEA on 8 November 2011 seems to challenge this statement (we will call this the November Report). What is your position following the release of the November Report?

Shafaie
: The IAEA has issued 35 reports on Iran since June 2003. What remains well-founded, credible and accurate in all of these reports, including the November Report, is the fact that “the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs [Locations Outside Facilities, meaning in hospitals] declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement”.[2] (external - login to view)

This is the most decisive and accurate finding of hundreds of hours of inspection by IAEA inspectors and 24/7 surveillance by IAEA cameras. The allegation remains as always that “the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran”; while Iran continues to categorically deny any undeclared nuclear sites on its soil. There has never been any evidence of such sites until today.

There are some other, old and new, allegations in the November Report which have become worthy of attention thanks to the media hype, for example the allegations of Research & Development (external - login to view) for nuclear weapons based on data from a mystery laptop (external - login to view). Gareth Porter, the investigative journalist, has best dealt with this issue and discounted the intelligence documents that have been used to indict Iran as plotting to build nuclear weapons as fabrications by a self-interested party, namely Israel’s Mossad. Others have also argued that the US has once again used fake intelligence to build a justification to wage war (external - login to view). Muhammad Sahimi, an Iranian professor and commentator, has also provided a critical analysis of the issue which you can listen to here (external - login to view). Or you can read Iran’s own assessment of the so-called alleged studies here (external - login to view). With regard to the nuclear facilities in Iran near Qom, Daniel Joyner writing for the Jurist (external - login to view) has explained in legal terms why Iran was not obliged under its Safeguards Agreement to declare a facility which was not yet introduced to nuclear material. Perhaps the newest and most exciting allegation in the November Report is that of the involvement of a former-Soviet “nuclear scientist” in Iran’s nuclear program. The Ukrainian scientist in nanotechnology (external - login to view), Danilenko, has rebuffed the manipulation (external - login to view) of his identity and expertise in the November Report. Porter has also provided a sober analysis of the new allegations here (external - login to view).

Moreover, Iran submitted a 117-page clarification document to the IAEA in May 2008 clarifying most of the above allegations in full detail. Although the November Report does not add anything new in terms of substance and concern to the issue, Iran has provided the 118 Members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) with answers to twenty key questions (external - login to view) regarding its nuclear program. Moreover the NAM has issued a statement (external - login to view) criticising the biased and unprofessional behaviour of the IAEA against Iran.
In a nutshell, there is still no shred of evidence (external - login to view) indicating that Iran has an intention for developing nuclear weapons, let alone having a military nuclear program already.

Franco: The IAEA claims to have verified most of the evidence provided by member states but some claim that the UN nuclear watchdog is as a much a technical organisation as it is a political body (external - login to view). Is the IAEA as independent as it purports to be? What should we make of their November Report?


Shafaie:
The November Report does not contain any evidence of nuclear weaponisation in Iran, only some allegations, both old and new. The corresponding data to these allegations has been fed to the IAEA mainly by one unnamed “Member State”. Experts of all sides agree that the concerned Member State is in fact Israel: a member state to the IAEA (along with 150 other countries), but not a signatory to the NPT (along with only 3 other countries). Therefore, legally speaking, the whole report lacks credibility and legitimacy.

To use a court case analogy, this is what has happened: Iran has been accused of having an intention to develop nuclear weapons (guilty until proven innocent), the Agency (prosecutor and the jury) cannot guarantee that Iran does not have a military nuclear agenda (double negative case), the enemy of Iran, Israel, itself very much guilty of having actually committed the same crime (nuclear weaponisation) provides the jury with the so-called evidence. Important documents and information were withheld (external - login to view) from the jury (former IAEA head, ElBaradei) and the defendant (Iran). Meanwhile the new head of the jury (current IAEA head, Amano) is himself under the influence (external - login to view) of another arch enemy of Iran and best friends of Israel, namely the US. The US is itself guilty of not only having the largest number of nuclear arsenal in the world throughout the history, but also guilty of being the only country which has actually used nuclear bombs against civilian population, not once but twice. When the jury-prosecutor receives these readymade allegations and fabricated evidence supporting those allegations, it sends Iran’s nuclear file to the Supreme Court which is the Security Council here. There again you find the US sitting comfortably along with its European allies and opportunist powers to decide if Iran should be punished for a crime it has not committed. It won’t be hard to guess what such a verdict would be, without even having seen or verified the evidence.

Franco: Talking of Israel, the Economist published on November 12th that ‘The Israelis’ anxiety is understandable. They fear a theocratic regime that embraces the Shia tradition of martyrdom may not be deterred by a nuclear balance of terror (external - login to view)’. Is this what the West truly fears or is there something else at stake?


Shafaie: I don’t fully understand why Israel fears Iran so much, yet I don’t think that their fear is unreal. Israel has been active in acts of sabotage and terror against Iran ranging from cyber attacks and most notoriously assassination of Iranian scientists. So it may be the case that Israel really thinks that Iran wants to make nuclear bombs. But the Israeli fear is not proof for an Iranian crime. There is a Persian expression which says that master thieves always have many locks on their own doors.
Some argue that the source of Israeli paranoia against Iran is the antagonistic language of Iranian leaders, most notably the current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and also the late leader of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini. They both said that Zionism will disappear from the page of time (external - login to view) and I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t. The Apartheid regime vanished from the page of time without South Africa being wiped off the map (external - login to view). The problem may be that Israeli leaders see the existence of their political party and particular ideology as identical with the existence of the Jewish people and their country. This is a false portrayal of reality. Israel and the Jewish people do not need Zionism but the other way round. Moreover, Iran’s military doctrine is fundamentally defensive and it has been like that for more than two centuries. Unlike Israel or the US, Iran does not follow its political aspirations through aggressive military means. With regard to Israel, Iran insists that it is up to the people of the Occupied Territories to decide their own future.

I agree with Avner Cohen (external - login to view), an expert on Israeli nuclear arsenal and a professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, who said that “Ultimately this is a fight over the Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region”; meaning that Israel, but also the US and the IAEA, are not really concerned with the nature of Iranian nuclear program, but more so with Israel’s status as the sole nuclear-armed state in the region. Keeping the Israeli nuclear weapons monopoly has become the most important issue on the IAEA and Security Council agenda, whereas it should be really the issue of creating a WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East.

Franco: Let’s now move to the issue of sanctions. In your interview with Iranicum (external - login to view) you stated that sanctions are counter-productive and a direct attack on Iran’s population. You also claimed that diplomacy and negotiation are the only way forward. On the other hand, many believe Iran is just buying time to develop a break-out capability and the US and the EU have strengthened sanctions against Tehran. Against this background, how can diplomacy continue to serve international and regional peace and security?


Shafaie:
Sanctions are confrontational and destructive. The question is what have they achieved anywhere in the world at any point in time? What did a decade of sanctions against Iraq (external - login to view) achieve? Did it help the oppressed people of Iraq? No, more than 500,000 Iraqi children died as a direct result of sanctions. What did sanctions achieve in Libya? Did they bring about democracy, prosperity or a bright future? What about Syria? Why should anyone think that Iran is or will be any different? Sanctions are not just a prelude to war, but in fact they are an act of war because like wars they destroy economies and lead to death and destruction. Sanctions are proving to be detrimental not only for the enemy’s economy (or the receiving people) but also for the sending countries. Moreover such sanctions in the case of Iran also “impact companies from third countries cooperating with Iran in the oil and oil-refining industry, and in the banking sector”, a fact reiterated by Russia which “views such extra-territorial measures as unacceptable and against international law (external - login to view)” and as “a tool for regime change (external - login to view)”.
The current system imposed on international relations by the West creates lose-lose situations. Even lose-win situations should be considered obsolete in our globalised world. The West should drop its extra-legal demand for suspension of nuclear enrichment in Iran. Negotiations should instead take place in order to expand cooperation in the field of nuclear energy production and research. An interesting option would be the revival of the nuclear deal involving Russia, Iran, France and the IAEA (originally devised in October 2009 (external - login to view)). Based on this deal Iran would ship most of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia for further enrichment and then to France for processing into fuel rods which are needed for medical purposes in Tehran Research Reactor. There is also the Iran-Brazil-Turkey deal (external - login to view) which was concluded with initial support from the Obama Administration (external - login to view) but later dismissed by the US (external - login to view) in the Security Council.

I think that the revival of the Russian deal is a better option at the moment because Turkey seems to have slightly tilted towards the West, especially through its NATO membership. Turkey (external - login to view)’s decision to host American anti-missile shields has bothered Iran (external - login to view) and Russia (external - login to view) alike, while pleasing Israel. Now it may be time that Iran reconsiders the Russian proposal of 2009. This will be a win-win situation for all the parties who choose to be involved.

Franco: Let’s talk a bit more about nuclear deals. In a September 2011 interview with the Washington Post (external - login to view) (later reproduced in similar terms with the New York Times (external - login to view)) President Ahmadinejad reiterated his offer to stop enriching Uranium to 20% level in exchange for fuel rods. Why has the offer fallen on deaf ears and do you think the November Report is having any influence in the US decision not to consider Ahmadinejad’s offer seriously?


Shafaie:
The reason President Ahmadinejad is offering to halt uranium enrichment (external - login to view) up to 20% is that Iran urgently needs (external - login to view) the nuclear fuel rods for its Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). More than 800,000 patients of cancer and other complicated diseases are dependent on medical radioisotopes produced by the TRR for diagnosis and treatment. Unfortunately the significant humanitarian aspect of Iran’s nuclear program has been wilfully neglected by the US and the IAEA. Iran’s nuclear program is politicised by the West at the expense of these patients who are turned away from hospitals on a daily basis because the TRR has almost ran out of fuel.

The recent proposal by President Ahmadinejad is not unique in kind. Iran had previously agreed to other deals, such as the Iran-Brazil-Turkey deal that I just mentioned to solve this diplomatic and humanitarian deadlock. In 2008 Iran proposed to establish an international consortium (external - login to view) to enrich uranium on its soil as a way of defusing tensions over its nuclear program. The proposal was again dismissed by the West because the US and its European allies want Iran to completely abandon its nuclear enrichment program or in other words give up some of its national sovereignty. President Ahmadinejad’s offer to halt uranium enrichment up to 20% indicates efforts towards reaching a win-win solution. Iran refuses to be put in such an immoral position where it has to choose between its national sovereignty and the well-being of its hundreds of thousands of patients. Moreover, there is no guarantee from the West to safeguard either side should Iran choose to pick one.

I think that the West is using the issue of Iranian urgent humanitarian need for nuclear fuel as a bargaining chip and that is why Iran’s continuous offers for suspension of uranium enrichment to 20% seem to be falling upon deaf ears in the West.

Franco: One last question, Miss Shafaie. Recent developments seem to have elevated tensions to levels similar to those experienced in the prelude to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Speaking of Iran’s nuclear program, President Obama’s National Security Adviser Thomas E. Donilon reiterated recently that ‘the United States would take no options off the table in dealing with Tehran’ (external - login to view). Is this mere rhetoric or is it reflective of views in the Obama administration that see war with Iran inevitable?


Shafaie:
There is a horrific fact about the now cliché American phrase “All options are on the table” against Iran. All options here include the following measures: extra-legal economic and diplomatic sanctions for example against Iran’s civilian aviation industry, various acts of sabotage including cyber attacks, espionage operations involving anti-Iranian terrorist groups and unmanned drones, assassination of Iranian scientists inside Iran, and most recently sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank and talks of an oil embargo against Iran; but most notoriously this phrase implies the possibility of an unprovoked nuclear attack by the US against Iran. President Obama spelled out this possibility in his 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (external - login to view). The gravity of such horrific threat by the US against non-nuclear-armed Iran is reflected in the text of Iran’s complaint to the Security Council (external - login to view). However, Iran’s complaint was rather in vain because the aggressor, namely the US is itself dominating the Security Council.
So does this mean that the US will use its nuclear weapons again, this time against Iran? I’m not so sure. Because the Western military-industrial complex is currently benefitting from the status quo that the US and Israel have created in the region through Iranophobia. The American arms sales to the region amount to billions of dollars. Moreover, the US military-industrial complex is benefiting from its European missile shield deals (external - login to view). However, there is always the risk of saturation of the arms market in the region and by extension the risk of an all-out war. Yet, there are a number of actors which would by no means benefit from such a scenario and it is possible that they would prevent such a war.

The biggest loser of such a war with Iran would be the people of the world. The anti-war movement has become much stronger in the West than it was in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Moreover, the global economic crisis has made people rethink the trust and power that they have invested in their regimes. The other actors who would not benefit from yet another American-made war in the Middle East are China China (external - login to view) and Russia (external - login to view). Unlike the US, Chinese economy is not based on arms sales and China has a lot to lose from rising oil prices. The Russian situation is quite similar, so is the situation of Brazil, India, and South Africa (i.e. BRICS countries). In fact the deputy foreign ministers of the BRICS (external - login to view) countries stated their deep concerns in a meeting in November 2011 “about security and stability in the Gulf region” and called “for political dialogue in resolving differences” and “rejected the use and threat of force”. In their Joint Communiqué (external - login to view) “the Participants stressed the necessity to build a system of relations in the Gulf region that would guarantee equal and reliable security for all States of the sub-region.” This is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa agreeing on an urgent matter, all currently members of the Security Council.

There is a lot of tension and horrific threats of war, but there is also hope that at least some in the international community have maintained their sanity and are increasingly calling for diplomacy and negotiations in place of wars and confrontation.

Franco: Miss Shafaie, thank you very much for finding the time to answer our questions.


Iran, Israel and the US: who (external - login to view)
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 8th, 2012 at 11:26 AM..
 
Goober
#197
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

You seem to not understand two points of logic.

1]



The IAEA ia still waiting for information that clarifies the differing stories, submissions, evidence that is contradictory.


I do not understand logic. Really.

Please note the questions and your votes.

View Poll Results: Oil Sanction
Is the West right to impose sanctions -Morally -Legally
DaSleeper, earth_as_one, In Between Man, ironsides

Is the West wrong to impose sanctions-Morally -Legally
Cliffy, earth_as_one, jariax, petros
 
earth_as_one
#198
The problem is the way you phrased your choices. Legal and moral aren't the same thing. Something can be illegal and moral or it can be legal and immoral. It doesn't have to be legal and moral or illegal and immoral.

Sanctions against Iran for something they have done could be legal even if the sanctions aren't moral.

Sanctions applied against Iran for something Iran is only accused of doing, would be legal, yet morally wrong.
 
ironsides
#199
There is no such thing as a non-violent struggle..According to Gene Sharp (who can be credited with influencing greatly this Arab Spring) all Non-Violent Struggle is Violent. One can never underestimate how and why something is happening no matter how you think.

Gene Sharp, Nonviolent Warrior | The Nation (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#200
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

The problem is the way you phrased your choices. Legal and moral aren't the same thing. Something can be illegal and moral or it can be legal and immoral. It doesn't have to be legal and moral or illegal and immoral.

Sanctions against Iran for something they have done could be legal even if the sanctions aren't moral.

Sanctions applied against Iran for something Iran is only accused of doing, would be legal, yet morally wrong.

That is what I figured you would come back with. Now back to why has Iran not provided the IAEA with the information it requested. And yes it is required by the IAEA. You do rememeber who they work for.
Why has Iran provided conflicting accounts when providing information. Makes a person wonder what they are hiding is a reasonable question. But to iran - Reason does not exist.

As the world has seen with their threats to close Hormuz. And we know how well Iran would be at the end of that short War. Simply Fuked does come to mind.

The economic sanctions are having a real bite. Wait a few more months as the Saudi's ramp up more production.

Please keep your replies short as I will not read a full page of cut and paste.
 
earth_as_one
#201
Iran does not have to meet the conditions of agreements that it did not ratify. Iran can legally defy the UNSC... at its peril. Iran has a good case that it is being treated unfairly by a subjective IAEA and UNSC.

Countries can legally impose sanctions against Iran for not ratifying the additional confidence building protocols while ignoring India, Pakistan and Israel which have nuclear technology which have not signed the entire NPT and possess nuclear weapons.

A traffic cop could also hand out a speeding ticket to someone driving 5 km/h over the speed limit, while ignoring all the other cars traveling 50 km/h over the speed limit. However a case could be made that the traffic cop is not applying the same standards to everyone.

If Iran is not treated objectively by the IAEA then they would be justified in unsigning themselves from the NPT in the same way that Canada unsigned itself from the Kyoto Protocols regarding climate change.

Iran can defy the UNSC, with little fear that China would allow any UNSC resolution which would interfere with their ability to buy Iranian oil. China might choose to not protect Iran if they built a nuke, which is yet another reason why I doubt Iran is building nukes.
 
Goober
#202
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Iran does not have to meet the conditions of agreements that it did not ratify. Iran can legally defy the UNSC... at its peril. Iran has a good case that it is being treated unfairly by a subjective IAEA and UNSC.

Countries can legally impose sanctions against Iran for not ratifying the additional confidence building protocols while ignoring India, Pakistan and Israel which have nuclear technology which have not signed the entire NPT and possess nuclear weapons.

A traffic cop could also hand out a speeding ticket to someone driving 5 km/h over the speed limit, while ignoring all the other cars traveling 50 km/h over the speed limit. However a case could be made that the traffic cop is not applying the same standards to everyone.

If Iran is not treated objectively by the IAEA then they would be justified in unsigning themselves from the NPT in the same way that Canada unsigned itself from the Kyoto Protocols regarding climate change.

Iran can defy the UNSC, with little fear that China would allow any UNSC resolution which would interfere with their ability to buy Iranian oil. China might choose to not protect Iran if they built a nuke, which is yet another reason why I doubt Iran is building nukes.

Stay on topic. The IAEA states that they have had problems with information provided by Iran. Also information has not been provided. Questions on why, when Iran started working on Nuke Triggers, and that only has 1 purpose.
A number of countries have come to the belief that Iran is planning to build or have the capacity to build quickly a Nuke Wpn. And Europe is nervous.

Unsigning – You mean withdrawing from the NPT – Then we would have a War. Does the NPT have a withdrawal clause. Kyoto did.

You keep on thinking the IAEA is a US puppet. Proof please.

Iran also today stated they would close Hormuz if sanctions on oil take effect

China will go with their best interests. And when push comes to shove it will not be Iran as their chief interest.
 
earth_as_one
#203
Iran answered the questions. The IAEA has no evidence which contradicts their answers. Its now up to the IAEA to prove Iran's answers were lies. If they can'ty do that, then they should move on. I suggest the IAEA and the UNSC take a closer look at Israel, India and Pakistan. Unlike Iran, these countries have not signed the NPT and have built nuclear weapons.

Also, it is doubtful that any Iranian action would cause the US and its allies to ease or remove economic sanctions. The world has already seen how the US works when it comes to countries they plan to invade and occupy.

Back in 1998, Iraq had met all its disarmament obligations. Iraq allowed UN weapon inspectors (UNSCOM) to go anywhere and talk to anyone. Even though UNSCOM could not find any evidence proving Iraq still had WMDs, the sanctions stayed in place and Iraq was bombed anyway, using intel gathered illegally by US and UK spies in UNSCOM. I'm sure Iran noticed that abuse.

In 2002, Iraq made an accurate declaration of their past WMD programs, including names of people and companies which helped. Iraq allowed the new UN WMD inspectors (UNMOVIC) to go anywhere and talk to anyone. Even though Iraq complied with all UNSC requirements and the chief inspector stated they were only a few months away from resolving all remaining disarmament issues, Iraq was invaded and occupied anyway:

...the Iraqi WMD declaration required by security council resolution 1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, now stands as the most accurate compilation of data yet assembled regarding Iraq's WMD programmes (more so than even Duelfer's ISG report, which contains much unsubstantiated speculation). Saddam Hussein has yet to be contradicted on a single point of substantive fact. Iraq had disarmed; no one wanted to accept that conclusion....
Scott Ritter: The source Duelfer didn't quote | World news | The Guardian (external - login to view)

Everything found in Iraq since 2003 supports the conclusion that Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Despite Iraq's full cooperation with the IAEA and UNMOVIC, they were still invaded and occupied.

Why would Iran to subject themselves to the same process which led to the Iraq invasion/occupation????

The people responsible for infiltrating UNSCOM with spies and starting an unprovoked war should be held accountable for their actions first. Maybe after that, it would be reasonable to ask Iran to subject themselves to the same process which led to the illegal Iraq invasion/occupation.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan (external - login to view)

Obviously what's going on here has little to do with justice or objectivity. These sanctions are a preamble for a US led invasion/occupation of Iran, plain and simple. I hope the Iranian people are able to avoid yet another illegal US led war.

Canada should not get involved in illegal unprovoked wars of aggression.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 8th, 2012 at 02:43 PM..
 
Goober
#204
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Also, it is doubtful that any Iranian action would cause the US and its allies to ease or remove economic sanctions. The world has already seen how the US works when it comes to countries they plan to invade and occupy.

.

BShzt - When Saddams Generals asked during the invasion for WMD's, they were suprised to hear Saddam tell them, he had none. Why did he pretend. To keep Iran at bay, his army was in tatters.
Saddam did not cooperate, you know it as well as I.
 
earth_as_one
#205
More BS from the same sources which lied about Iraq's WMDs. Even if those conversations happened, (and no evidence exists to support allegations that they did), Iraq's official declaration as per UNSC 1441 and the subsequent UNMOVIC findings are what counts. Iraq's declaration remains the most accurate account of Iraq's WMD program and subsequent searches for WMDs in Iraq reveal nothing that wasn't already known by UNMOVIC.

Iraq did in fact cooperate with UNMOVIC and Hans Blix even said so. That you would still; believe this all these years later indicates you are still manipulated.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 8th, 2012 at 02:47 PM..
 
gerryh
#206
Still haven't answered the question I posed I see.
 
earth_as_one
#207
Still can't find the answer I already gave I see. How about you repost your question and then I'll repost my answer.
 
gerryh
#208
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Still can't find the answer I already gave I see. How about you repost your question and then I'll repost my answer.


Fine, but if it's the non answer you already gave.... it would be a waste of time.


If Iran blocked the straight, forcing the u.s.'s hand and the u.s. and their allies invaded. Where would you stand?
 
Goober
#209
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

More BS from the same sources which lied about Iraq's WMDs. Even if those conversations happened, (and no evidence exists to support allegations that they did), Iraq's official declaration as per UNSC 1441 and the subsequent UNMOVIC findings are what counts. Iraq's declaration remains the most accurate account of Iraq's WMD program and subsequent searches for WMDs in Iraq reveal nothing that wasn't already known by UNMOVIC.

Iraq did in fact cooperate with UNMOVIC and Hans Blix even said so. That you would still; believe this all these years later indicates you are still manipulated.

This is what Blix said.

UNMOVIC/IAEA: Press Statement on Inspection Activities Report - 3-3-03 (external - login to view)
UNMOVIC conducted a private interview with an Iraqi scientist in the afternoon.

An UNMOVIC chemical team returned to the Al Muthanna site and supervised the destruction of 14 empty 155mm artillery shells, ten of which had contained mustard. The mustard, which had been taken out of these shells, is being neutralized. Another chemical team inspected one of the plants at the National Chemical Plastic Industries in Baghdad. The facility produces plasticizer to be used as a raw material in plastic granule and artificial leather production.

An UNMOVIC biological team returned to the Al Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range and took additional samples from the previously recovered R-400 bombs, which, Iraq had declared, had been filled with biological agents. The team also verified additional fragments recovered by Iraq. Another biological team inspected the headquarters of the Mesopotamia State Company for Seeds in Baghdad. A third biological team inspected the Department of Biology of the College of Science at Mosul University.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.
Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.
Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]
 
earth_as_one
#210
At first Iraq was loathe to subject themselves to the abuses of the previously discredited inspection process. But Iraq did eventually actively and proactively cooperate.

Notice the date of this report relative to yours:

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003
.....
.....

...the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed....

...after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January....

...
Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.
....


Mr. President,

Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

Security Council 7 March 2003 (external - login to view)

So on March 7, 2003 the Chief UN Weapon inspector is saying that Iraq is actively and proactively cooperating and that all remaining disarmament issues would be resolved within months. Then 2 weeks later the US launches their invasion/occupation of Iraq before UNMOVIC can write their final report.

I have a problem with that. Does anyone else?

So why would Iran subject themselves to the same process which the US and UK abused in order to successfully invade and occupy Iraq?
 

Similar Threads

no new posts