Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?

[earth_as_one]

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]

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]

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

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

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.

 

[Goober]

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]

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.

 

[gerryh]

Still haven't answered the question I posed I see.

 

[earth_as_one]

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]

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]

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
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
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]

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

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?

 

[gerryh]

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

It's not the same at all. No one is trying to get Iran to disarm.

 

[Goober]

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
Iraq?

1 month or so between the dates based over how many years. Is that the best you can do.
Saddam had interfered with inspections for how long, since 1992 - That is why many believed he had WMD's
Appears he waited much to long.

The IAEA has been trying since 2003 or so to resolve these issues. Of course it is all the fault of the US.
You stated the US was going to invade Iran - Not a chance - The US does not have the resources for this.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) :: IAEA and Iran :: IAEA Reports

 

[earth_as_one]

It's not the same at all. No one is trying to get Iran to disarm.

Iran is a sovereign nation. They signed the NPT and as a result they have a legal NPT guaranteed right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology including enrichment to 20%. The UNSC resolution ordering Iran to stop their legal NPT compliant enrichment activities violates Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology as an NPT signatory.

The US and their allies want to open all of Iran up to inspection, rather than just their declared nuclear facilities. When Iraq did that, UNSCOM used their access to spy on Iraq's legal defense systems. Allegedly US/UK spies in UNSCOM illegally planted eavesdropping and homing devices on Iraq's legal defense systems and in their command and control centers. UNSCOM also deliberately disrupted events and made ridiculous demands in order to provoke an Iraqi response.

When Iraq opened themselves up to unrestricted inspections, not finding anything was twisted into proof that Iraq was not cooperating. Goober still believes that falsehood today.

Iraq was forced to prove the non-existence of WMD stockpiles. The IAEA is now making similar demands of Iran to prove the non-existence of a nuclear weapon program. Lack of evidence is again being being portrayed as proof Iran is not cooperating and hiding their nuclear weapon program.

Just like Iraq, no action by Iran would result in the US lifting their sanctions.

I can see enough parallels that I understand why Iran would choose to not to follow the same path as Iraq.

What Iran wants, they already have. Iran has a nuclear weapon break out capability. Iran is a few months away from building and testing a nuclear weapon. Iran has no need to build nuclear weapons at this time. They have their nuclear deterrent.

Iran will not build nuclear weapons, unless they are attacked.

If Iran is invaded and occupied, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC) will resort to asymmetric warfare. The IRGC which guards Iran's nuclear sites would lead the Iranian resistance. They would also possess all Iran's nuclear secrets and technology.

What's going on is that the US and Israel want to weaken Iran and soften them up for invasion/occupation, the same way they did to Iraq. This time its not going to work.

 

[Goober]

Iran is a sovereign nation. They signed the NPT and as a result they have a legal NPT guaranteed right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology including enrichment to 20%. The UNSC resolution ordering Iran to stop their legal NPT compliant enrichment activities violates Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology as an NPT signatory.

.

A UNSC Resolution is indeed legal - Iran is not going to be invaded. Any nutbar with a clue would understand that. Iraq stated on Mar 07, 2003 that they would be cooperative. How many years did Iraq dick the UN around on inspections. Legal inspections. You should have that number handy.

 

[darkbeaver]

A UNSC Resolution is indeed legal - Iran is not going to be invaded. Any nutbar with a clue would understand that. Iraq stated on Mar 07, 2003 that they would be cooperative. How many years did Iraq dick the UN around on inspections. Legal inspections. You should have that number handy.

Excuuuuse me, if A UNSC resolution is "INDEED LEGAL" Israel can be legally reduced to rubble to force compliance to the numerous UNSC decisions against that same pustulating boil of a fake state.

 

[Goober]

Excuuuuse me, if A UNSC resolution is "INDEED LEGAL" Israel can be legally reduced to rubble to force compliance to the numerous UNSC decisions against that same pustulating boil of a fake state.

Have you been playing with the 220 again???

 

[darkbeaver]

Have you been playing with the 220 again???

Not as much as you play with the truth.

Examination of the ME situation indicates without doubt the cause and most likely cure of same problems and that would be dismemberment and dissolution of the illegal Israeli genocidal apartheid state. The complaints would fall away to nothing.

 

[Goober]

Not as much as you play with the truth.

Truth as laid out over time. It is common for it to take time to find the truth. Now back to the 220, one foot in the water, and prepare to dance.

 

[darkbeaver]

Truth as laid out over time. It is common for it to take time to find the truth. Now back to the 220, one foot in the water, and prepare to dance.

The truth about Israel is plainly and perfectly laid out over the time of its brutal murderous and corrupt existence.

 

[gerryh]

I see you ignored the question again eao.