Is Washington Attempting to Dupe Us About Iran? Looks That Way! As Bushite Rhetoric Grows more Hysterical, some citizens become more suspicious. Here we investigate the rhetoric and separate it from the realities, with a boost from Congressman Kucinich. We contacted his owffie and spoke to a Top staff member who okayed our use of his memo which was released today.
Iran On The Hot Seat? On Thursday February 2, 2006, at 10:02 AM Sally Buzbee of the AP wrote from Cairo a chronological study of Iran's Nuclear Program and America's reaction to it. I quote "At a decisive moment in the struggle over Iran's nuclear program, Tehran's true intentions -- and the West's real options -- remain murky. Even such basic questions as "Who calls the shots?" are open to debate. One thing is known: Iran has vast amounts of oil and plenty of ways to retaliate, whatever the world decides to do." Most of the reports by other, which I have surveyed, cover much the same ground so I have assimilated here as many as possible to make a cohesive whole ranging across the spectrum of views and ideas. The creditable ones outline Iran's position and America's reaction including the fact that the Bushites claim, a claim we are all too familiar with because one must hold their nose when they hear it, so much does it reek of death for oil, that the entire plan displayed to others is false and the purpose of their haste is nefarious at best. Israel agrees with that assessment. Perhaps had Iraq not happened first and had the Bushites not labored in every possible manner to fight tooth and nail desperately for occupation forces to stay in Iraq, we might have listened less suspicious of the Bushites true motives there and here. Those of us with even a moderate measure of ability to make projections based upon past behavior of those we are examining and their impact on the future of our nation, (which is most of us here at OpEdNews and other similar sites and a growing number of Americans of commonsense and alert mindedness), might not be so negative, if we had not witnessed the rape and slaughter of Iraq by mercenary interests. We know why the Bushites are so eager to continue to occupy Iraq, it is because the Iraqi's, now know that the purpose of the Invasion had less to do with "evil-doers" and more to do with, OIL, and the fact that the present Iraqi congress and president are thus far taking their own lives in their hands by refusing to sign-off on an oil deal which would hand over to the Brit and American oil Companies 99% of the royalties from Iraqi Oil, making her a nation of peasants and near slaves, if they are at all allowed to live. Some see the American goal for Iraq is to make her a US colony, in which all of her native businesses and lands and natural resources are confiscated or forced to capitulate to US/Brit commercial demands (stealing their businesses and homes) by the US and Brits under the threat of Mercenaries murdering them and taking what they want. It reminds one very much of the films, Shane, The Violent Men and any of dozens of American westerns in which the Texans come and intimidate everyone in the valley to sell out or die and they steal all the land. Sally Buzbee's outline is not much different from all the others we have seen; The International; Atomic Energy Commission insists that a three year investigation displays no evidence that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, however, it refused to rule out such plans. The US says that they believe that the Iranians are lying and covering up their real intentions, making WMD's! It is refreshing to see that the motivation/excuse is a bit different from the excuses the Bushites gave for attacking Iraq. There they said that the Iraqi's already had WMD's, which, of course, some of us did not buy into, despite the fact the we had no way of knowing the truth, we only knew we'd seen the corruption within the Republican Party, which was taken over by War Criminals, mass-murderers, avaristic slime and misdirected, misguided demoniac so-called "Christians" which they give no real evidence of being. Iran says its nuclear program is purely for generating electricity and that it does not intend to develop nuclear weapons. The United States says that Iran's January 10 decision to reignite (What a word choice!) small-scale uranium enrichment, followed by it's claim publicly that Israel should be wiped off the earth has caused their credibility to be sharply called into question at the very least. And that comment does have some validity and the Bushites ought to know about such deceptions, they were making similar comments about the Iraqi's just something over six years ago and now Iraq is very close to becoming a nation of paupers, with their only major industry asset about top be stolen, and their population rapidly diminishing; minus about 6,000,000 people, four million have left the country and 1,100,000,00 are injured, wounded or otherwise disabled, and nearly 700,000 are dead. Add to that 4,000 American dead and 50,000 casualties and you have a depopulation, economic, genocidal disaster. Not much else can go wrong with a nation in one fell swoop, in such a short period. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been engaging Iran in discussions with concerning its nuclear goals and as a result, some time back it claimed that Iran was failing to comply with a 23rd of May deadline to stop the enrichment of uranium as required by the Security Council and thus imposed sanctions on Iran, but the US wants to impose more. The IAEA hopes to achieve a negotiated end to the mounting conflict, by having Iran suspend its enrichment program and enter negotiations. It also wants Iran to comply fully with its demands for full disclosure about past activities. Sound familiar? It should it bears an amazing resemblance to the UN pressuring Iraq to comply with searches for WMD's. How could they prove they had no WMD's? There is no way, and they, in fact, did not have any because if they had they would have used them when they were attacked and since and they have not. Iran's position is that it is entitled to enrich uranium and that it intends merely to create power for domestic needs not for nuclear weapons. The IAEA says that, "Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities. Iran has continued with operation of its pilot fuel enrichment plant and with construction of its enrichment plant." It goes on to say that Iran installed 1,640 centrifuges uranium enrichment devices most of which are being injected with uranium gas and are running them simultaneously, indicating a higher level of technical achievement than had been thought likely before." The IAEA wanted Iran to stop all enrichment activities. Of the Security Council's imposed rounds of sanctions, Resolution 1737 under Article 41 of the UN Charter was passed in December 2006. It calls for economic measures, and not military force! It orders UN member states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems." Also under Article 41, on March 2007, the Security Council passed resolution 1747 which tightens the reins on both Iran's nuclear and missile programs because it prevents deals between the state Bank Sepah and certain people (28 of them, which are named) and groups, and organisations, most of which are tied in some way to the elite Revolutionary Guard. Member states have been ordered to spy upon certain suspected people and groups as well, particularly their travel itineraries. Member states have been told not to Import weapons and weapons systems from Iran. All loans are mandated to be solely for humanitarian and development purposes. Meanwhile, Germany, France and Britain have been lobbying for stronger sanctions and want the circle of banned organizations and individuals widened considerably. However, Russia and China have not agreed to these demands. However, there is a sticking point. Under the NPT, (The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) any nation has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, but only under IAEA inspection. Iran is claiming privilege under that allowance. Iran further states that it needs nuclear power and desires Gestalt in it's development of power, not dependency on others itself and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promises not use its technology for production of nuclear WMD's, and calls the US pressures "tyrannical, " and adds, "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he has said. Meanwhile the US says that Iran kept its nuclear program secret from the rest of the world for eighteen years until 2003 when it was discovered, so they cannot be trusted, but some feel that neither can US motives, especially where oil is present and thus calling to greedy war-mongering American and Brit oil thieves. Now, several nations including the USA have offered help to develop a civilian nuclear power program. Light-water reactors and fuel could be made in Russia in union with Iran. To sweeten the kitty, the offer includes helping Iran to join the World Trade Organization and perhaps even the lifting of some US sanctions in the aircraft, telecommunications and agricultural machinery areas. But, and here is the hitch for Iran, in order to take advantage of these offers, it must agree to suspend it's enrichment program and to that, Iran says a resounding, "NO!" Now, the IAEA in their access to Iranian nuclear facilities under a safeguards agreement, verified in February 2007 it that Iran had not diverted to illegal use any material it had declared. But, on the other hand, Iran still had not lived up to added requirements of the 2003 agreement, so the it the absence or presence of undeclared nuclear material cannot be verified. Sounds very much like Iraq and the unverified and non-existent, WMD's. Can Iran be trusted? Probably not, but then neither can the present US administration with it's massive contract corruption, it's destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights here at home, its love of torture, refusal to cover children and spouses in healthcare programs, and its generally criminal and corrupt nature, violence and its framing and mass murder of so many innocent people, it's New World Order Plan which is strikingly similar to the one FDR uncovered from a Nazi spy in 1941, before declaring war on Nazi Germany. The big question of how soon could Iran build a bomb if it wanted to varies depending on whom you ask. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London says, in its 2007 annual review, "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest." "It would probably take about two years to install and run [the 3,000 centrifuges] and another two before they could enrich enough uranium for one weapon." Norman Dombey, Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics at Sussex University claims and the IAEA Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei was quoted in late May of 2007 that if Iran chose to make a bomb it would take between 3 and 8 years. Others in the know think it could be longer even than that. Now, what about the beat of US war drums against Iran? Any attack by the USA could not, under present knowledge and conditions, be legally justifiable. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, says that he is not interested in, and has banned any construction of nuclear weapons of any kind. Ca he be believed? I don't know, do the Bushites?
Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator rejected suspending uranium enrichment: "Suspension is not a solution to Iran's nuclear issue...Iran cannot accept suspension. We have no conditions and we are ready for constructive talks but we will not accept any preconditions. We are ready to remove concerns over Iran's atomic issue." This according to RIA Novosti. May 30, 2007. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in May of 2007, that the IAEA is not the appropriate body to represent the international community in negotiations with Iran and President George W Bush has said that he wants a diplomatic resolution to the "crisis" but he has not ruled out air strikes and more. The US has stated more than once that it will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Israel is also a concern to Iran, they feel that Israel may attack in preemptive fashion, but Israel has denied any plans for such a plan, saying their first line of operation is diplomacy, not preemptive war. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity. What if Iran told the IAEA they were quitting? Well in that case, under Article X, they need to give the IAEA three months and they must declare that extraordinary events have jeopardized the supreme interests of the state, that is their exit signal. In addition, in fact, on 7 May, its parliament threatened to force the government to withdraw if the standoff was not resolved "peacefully." But wait, what about the current nuclear powers, aren't they obligated to disarm and toss out their Nuclear weapons under the NPT? Well, some are, some aren't. The USA, Israel, the Europeans and China, etc. are, but Israel, India and Pakistan, however, are not, because they do not belong to NPT, so they aren't required to report to it. Why don't we demand, with equal vigor, that belonging is mandatory in the presnet milieu? In addition, according to Article VI, member nations are committed to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." Now the powers, which have nuclear capability, are hypocritically saying , Hell, we've done this by reducing our warheads. Some say this ploy is transparent because warheads can be refitted quickly. I don't know if they can or can't be "refitted quickly," do you? The USA administration has protected citizen gun-owners, saying everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, but that apparently that philosophy, like many Bushite philosophies, only applies to vote getting, not to peace keeping, and seems only viable as long as it is limited to the USA and allies. Besides that, the USA and the Brits have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology back and forth from one to the other. The USA and Britain, however, claim this is of no concern to, nor is it covered by, the NPT. Now according to a confidential U.N. nuclear report obtained by Reuters, Iran's uranium enrichment program is operating far below it's capacity and is a long way from producing significant amounts of nuclear fuel. Some nations, US foremost, say that Iran's goal is to build nuclear weapons-bombs, not to generate electricity. That claim, notwithstanding, the IAEA report maintained that Tehran remained far short of weapons value thresholds. Allegedly a senior U.N. official who is well familiar with the IAEA's findings, said, that Iran has slowed its enrichment quite a bit lately. These reports, together with inspections, which are ongoing, have belied the US's bomb making claims. The latest reports show that there is a new Iranian cooperation with inspectors and that there is a no significant enrichment progress so the US claims appear unfounded and new sanctions are unnecessary. Russia, a Security Council veto-holder does not think Iran poses an immediate threat to world peace, and opposes any increase in sanctions as Iran continues to respond well. DISCREPANCIES In the midst of writing this, right this point where I entered it, came the following from Dennis Kucinich. I asked and received permission to quote it here at the end of my article. Latest report from IAEA on Iran: a reason to ratchet down threatening rhetoric FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Friday, August 31, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC A new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicating that Iran is cooperating with the nuclear watchdog agency and has agreed to provide additional information about its nuclear enrichment activities "should give serious pause to those who are beating the drums for possible military action against that country," Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today. "If Iran is cooperating, it's time for the President and others to stop ratcheting up the rhetoric regarding weapons, sanctions, and 'all options are on the table' so that we don't get tricked into another war," Kucinich said. "One war built on lies and deceptions Iraq is already one war too many." In its report, the IAEA noted that Iran was being unusually cooperative and had reached an agreement with the agency to answer questions about an array of suspicious past nuclear activities that have led some to suspect it harbors a secret effort to make nuclear arms. The agency added that while Tehran's uranium enrichment effort is growing, the output is far less than experts had expected, according to published reports today. "This is the first time Iran is ready to discuss all the outstanding issues which triggered the crisis in confidence," Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, said in an interview with the International Herald Tribune. "It's a significant step." In the interview, ElBaradei suggested that he would welcome a delay in the American-led strategy to impose new sanctions, saying, "I'm clear at this stage you need to give Iran a chance to prove its stated goodwill. Sanctions alone, I know for sure, are not going to lead to a durable solution." The agreement between the IAEA and Iran laid out a timetable aimed at resolving the nuclear issues, under investigation for four years, by December. By then, ElBaradei said in the interview, the agency will know whether Iran is seriously committed to cooperating. He also acknowledged that his report is putting him at odds with White House officials and others who are accusing the United Nations' agency of operating outside its mandate by striking a deal with Tehran. "My responsibility is to look at the big picture. If I see a situation deteriorating and it could lead to a war," ElBaradei said, "I have to raise the alarm or give my advice." "The IAEA should be commended for the progress it has been making in working out reasonable terms with Iranian officials and applauded for recognizing that saber rattling and oppressive sanctions constitute seriously dangerous policies in a region already in conflict," Kucinich said. "Caution and diplomacy need to replace recklessness and unilateralism." Thanks to Sharon Manitta, The Kucinich Campaign W D C