quote:

---

Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.

---

quote:

---

After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to building nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.

---

quote:

---

"This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors."

---

From a Washington Post article today.

Washington Post

quote:

---

The letter went on to brand "outrageous and dishonest" a suggestion in the report that he was removed for not adhering "to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

---

quote:

---

This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors."

---

In a recent Ha'aretz interview, Tony Blair simply states as a fact that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon:

quote:

---

Q Regarding Iran, do you agree with the comparisons to the 1930s that we often read about?

A "When you have the president of a country as powerful as Iran say those things, it may be very foolish of us to assume he doesn't mean them. And when he's also trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, then I think the warning signs are pretty clear ... I think for a president of a country to say they want to wipe another country off the face of the earth and at the same time he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability - if we don't get worried about that, future historians will raise a few questions about us and about our judgment.

---

Or rather, he's purposefully choosing to further heat up already overheated rhetoric in a manner that shows a peaceful, negotiated solution to the current tensions is not his priority. Some 'statesman.'

Oh, and if I were Tony Blair, history's judgment of my handling of the Iran file is not the verdict I'd be worried about.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

that their nuclear program is in violation of some international treaty;

---

Actually, a good remedy to the misleading statements of people like Tony Blair (mentioned above) and Michael Ignatieff (who has authoritatively declared that "Iran is also using a civilian nuclear program to develop weapons," while citing no evidence to support his claim) is to read what the International Atomic Energy Agency has to say on the matter of Iran.

Here's the Director-General's statement:

quote:

---

Regarding the implementation of safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran: on 31 July 2006, the Security Council adopted resolution 1696, in which it called upon Iran to take the steps required by the Board in its resolution of 4 February 2006. These steps included the necessity of the Agency continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, and the re-establishment by Iran of full and sustained suspension of all its enrichment related and repossessing activities. As requested by resolution 1696, you have before you the report that I submitted to the Board and in parallel to the Security Council, on 31 August, regarding Iran´s fulfillment of the requirements of that resolution.

As you can see from the report, Iran had not suspended its enrichment related activities. I should note that - although the inspectors´ findings indicated that there had been little qualitative or quantitative buildup of Iran´s enrichment capacity at Natanz - due to the absence of the implementation of the additional protocol, the Agency is not able to assess fully Iran´s enrichment related research and development activities, including the possible production of centrifuges and related equipment.

As I have indicated in the past, all the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency has been accounted for - and, apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, there have been no further findings of undeclared nuclear material in Iran.

But as I have also stated before, gaps remain in the Agency´s knowledge with respect to the scope and nature of Iran´s current and past centrifuge enrichment programme. Because of this, and the lack of readiness of Iran to resolve these issues, the Agency is unable to make further progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. This continues to be a matter of serious concern.

I should also reiterate that it is counterproductive for Iran to link its cooperation with the Agency to its ongoing dialogue with its European and other partners. Increased cooperation and transparency are indispensable to resolve these gaps in knowledge regarding Iran´s past nuclear programme, and would assist greatly in overcoming concerns regarding Iran´s nuclear programme.

---

As indeed they should be, to any person who doesn't want to see further nuclear proliferation.

That said, the IAEA's statements of concern about Iran's lack of adequate cooperation and compliance provide absolutely no support for the recklessly unqualified claims of Blair, Bush and Ignatieff that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

It's simply false to claim, as Bush, Blair, Ignatieff and House Republicans have done, that they know Iran is working towards a nuclear weapon: they have no evidence to support their claim, innuendo and propaganda excepted.

Admittedly, Iran should be exhorted to cooperate with the IAEA and the UN, but then so should India and Pakistan, whose nuclear weapons programs have continued apace over the last 8 years despite a 1998 UNSC resolution calling for their halt (See article 7 of UNSCR 1172).

Indeed, the US itself--so quick to condemn Iran's nascent nuclear program--should be exhorted to abide by the spirit of the 1998 UNSCR against India and Pakistan and 1) not loosen its domestic rules on nuclear cooperation with India; and 2) not sell nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan.

Just in case I haven't made the depth of the hypocrisy clear, I'll point out that UNSCR 1172 calls on Pakistan (and India) to halt development of missile programmes; and yet even as these nations have flouted that demand, the Pentagon recently unveiled plans to provide to Pakistan "thousands of bombs and missiles, including 500 advanced air-to-air missiles."

Obviously, the Pakistanis have as much right under the current international order to strengthen their military as does Canada, the US or any other nation.

That said, can we really take seriously US claims to be concerned about violations of UNSCRs on nuclear and missile proliferation while these sorts of deals are going on? I don't think we can, frankly.

Moving on, one could probably make a strong case that certain existing acknowledged nuclear powers (e.g. the US, Russia, France and the UK) are far more guilty of violating their international nuclear commitments than not-yet-nuclear Iran, since their steps towards nuclear disarmament (required under Article VI of the NPT) have been partial at best.

Indeed, Hans Blix has recently said that "the nuclear states no longer take their commitment to disarmament seriously."

So, where do such nuclear hypocrites get off demanding we all address Iran with a sense of absolute, even historic urgency, while they exempt themselves from their own international undertakings on nuclear disarmament?

I know where I'd tell such hypocritical international treaty violators to get off.

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

The Shah of Iran: America's nuclear poster boy

There's more over here ...

quote:

---

At a time when Iran's nuclear program is portrayed as an imminent threat, its interesting to see that the program actually started long ago, with the support and participation of the same countries that today insist Iran abandon its nuclear program.

---

Blasts from the past

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Apologies for sidescroll. If anyone knows how to reduce the size of the image, without making it unreadable, I'd appreciate a PM. Thanks.

---

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

Do not use the babble IMAGE button.

Type the following. NOTE: replace xxx by <, and replace yyy by >. Don't ask, just do it.

1. xxximg src=
2. Type the full http link to the image.
3. Wordspace
4. width="some number" (resized downwards from the original width point size)
5. Wordspace
6. height="some number" (ditto, see step 4)
7. yyy
8. Wordspace
9. xxx/imgyyy

Seems to work.

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

Ok,

code:

---

img src="http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ShahNuclearPlants.jpg" width="275" height="325"
  

---

Insert all of that between left and right angle brackets "<"insert the above code">"

I guess it still works even if you don't specify both width and height.

babble tips and tricks

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

And it should still work even if you only specify the width or the height. The other parameter will automatically be scaled accordingly.

---

Even better - saves half the math! Thanks, M.

ETA: Hey M. Spector and Fidel: Don't you still have to put /img between brackets at the end of your code, or can you leave that out??

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

Hey, another tip - if you right click on a web page-type picture and select "properties", it tells you the height and width of the photo you're looking at in giving an idea of what numbers to start scaling down from. I think as far as width and height go, you want to maintain a rough aspect ratio of 4:3, or what most tv sets project with the least picture distortion. ie. for every four picture elements in the horizontal, three are displayed in the vertical.

When resizing your own photos and such with any of the dozens(hundreds?) of free graphics s/w available on the web, the software is smart enough to maintain whatever aspect ratio was used with the original photo after resizing.

[ 17 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Hey M. Spector and Fidel: Don't you still have to put /img between brackets at the end of your code, or can you leave that out??

---