Chomsky: The Iranian Threat

[joergan]

It's funny that you'd accuse me of wasting your time while I'm busy tracking down a link to prove the UN has inspectors in Iran.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...+iaea+inspections&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Keep lying, sock puppet...54,000 hits...

 

[Winston Smith]

Try reading some of the articles.

Iran, which has declared the two inspectors persona non grata, made clear it would still allow the Vienna-based UN watchdog to monitor its nuclear facilities, saying other experts could carry out the work.

"Inspections are continuing without any interruption," Iran's IAEA envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters in Vienna… “(But) we have to show more vigilance about the performance of the inspectors to protect the confidentiality," he said, criticizing alleged leaks by inspectors to Western media.

VOVNEWS.VN | Iran blocks two UN inspectors - Iran blocks two UN inspectors

 

[Redress]

iran blocks iaea inspections - Google Search

Keep lying, sock puppet...54,000 hits...

Moderator's Warning:

This is unacceptable. You are hereby banned from this thread. Any further posting in this thread will be a 5 point infraction per post

 

[mbig]

Try reading some of the articles.

Iran, which has declared the two inspectors persona non grata, made clear it would still allow the Vienna-based UN watchdog to monitor its nuclear facilities, saying other experts could carry out the work.

"Inspections are continuing without any interruption," Iran's IAEA envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters in Vienna… “(But) we have to show more vigilance about the performance of the inspectors to protect the confidentiality," he said, criticizing alleged leaks by inspectors to Western media.

VOVNEWS.VN | Iran blocks two UN inspectors - Iran blocks two UN inspectors

What's so noticeable is Your article from 'VOVN' Voice of Vietnam news.
Kind of odd/obscure dont you think. Begs the question. Why not Iranian IRNA?

Why do you suppose the UN was able to pass Sanctions against Iran.. because they were cooperating?

U.S. On IAEA Iran Report | Home | Editorial

"The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 on June 9th by a vote of 12-2-1. U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, noted, "We are at this point because the Government of Iran has chosen clearly and willfully to violate its commitments to the IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] and the resolutions of the [Security] Council." She further noted that "Iran must fulfill its international obligations, suspend its enrichment-related, reprocessing, and heavy-water-related activities, and cooperate fully with the IAEA."

Moreover, the IAEA's Director General's latest report on Iran's nuclear program "clearly shows Iran's continued failure to comply with its international obligations and its sustained lack of cooperation with the IAEA," said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer in a recent statement.

Mr. Hammer said that the report, which was discussed at the IAEA's Board of Governors meeting on June 7th, "outlines Iran's sustained enrichment to both 3.5% and near 20% levels, continued construction of a heavy water research reactor, and refusal to permit the IAEA the access necessary to answer the ongoing questions regarding [the uranium enrichment facility at] Qom [kome] and long outstanding questions that surround a possible military dimension to its nuclear program."

For years, Iran has Failed to comply with repeated resolutions by the IAEA and the Security Council mandating that it stop its uranium enrichment-and heavy water-related activities..."

 

[Winston Smith]

It's not my article. It's from the page that Joergan linked. Here's the same quotation in a Reuter's article, if that helps.

The quality of Iran's cooperation with the inspectors is a matter of some controversy, mainly because the IAEA is demanding more than their treaty obligations require. The assertion that they don't allow inspections is rank ignorance, and that's what I was addressing in my post.

 

[Shayah]

The assertion that they don't allow inspections is rank ignorance, and that's what I was addressing in my post.

Allowing directed inspections and allowing complete/transparent inspections are two very different things. This is the crux of the problem with Iran and the casus belli for increasing UN sanctions.

 

[donsutherland1]

With respect to the IAEA's work, here's what its latest report (May 31, 2010) stated:

34. Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and the actions required of Iran necessary to resolve those issues.23 In the Director General’s last report, the Agency described a number of technical matters it needed to address with Iran.24 Since August 2008, however, Iran has declined to discuss the outstanding issues with the Agency or to provide any further information or access to locations and people necessary to address the Agency’s concerns, asserting that the allegations relating to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme are baseless and that the information to which the Agency is referring is based on forged documents.

35. Based on an overall analysis undertaken by the Agency of all the information available to it,25 the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities, involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. There are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.

36. With the passage of time and the possible deterioration in the availability of information, it is essential that Iran engage with the Agency on these issues, and that the Agency be permitted to visit all relevant sites, have access to all relevant equipment and documentation, and be allowed to interview all relevant persons, without further delay. Iran’s substantive and proactive engagement is essential to enable the Agency to make progress in its verification of the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations.

Note, I underlined some key text that reveals the extent of Iran's cooperation. In short, no matter the excuses Iran has used for its non-cooperation in certain areas, the IAEA has found Iran's cooperation as being insufficient.

Furthermore, subsequent to the IAEA's report, Iran even took the provocative step of barring two IAEA inspectors.

 

[justabubba]

With respect to the IAEA's work, here's what its latest report (May 31, 2010) stated:



Note, I underlined some key text that reveals the extent of Iran's cooperation. In short, no matter the excuses Iran has used for its non-cooperation in certain areas, the IAEA has found Iran's cooperation as being insufficient.

Furthermore, subsequent to the IAEA's report, Iran even took the provocative step of barring two IAEA inspectors.

you attempt to paint iran as uncooperative with the UN-based IAEA
but refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of israel, which refuses to cooperate in any way regarding the monitoring of its own nuclear arsenal, while complaining about - and trhreatening to take out - iran's nuclear development infrastructure
why is iran to be denied access to the same military weaponry israel possesses while israel's nuclear arsenal is ignored?

 

[mbig]

you attempt to paint iran as uncooperative with the UN-based IAEA

Clearly they are uncooperative.
And had even been Caught about 5 years ago with an illegal Parallel weapons program and many, many, inspection refusals.
Thus Winston had to fade to .. ahem.. 'some controversy' after claiming otherwise.
In fact, Winston previously posting the Deflective objection to two specific inspectors as a strawman. As If that was the problem.

but refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of israel, which refuses to cooperate in any way regarding the monitoring of its own nuclear arsenal, while complaining about - and trhreatening to take out - iran's nuclear development infrastructure
why is iran to be denied access to the same military weaponry israel possesses while israel's nuclear arsenal is ignored?

Here we go again.
Iran was a voluntary signatory of the NPT which allows/deems the IAEA inspections.
Israel had Nukes before there was an NPT and is Not signatory nor subject to it.
In fact, Iran renewed the NPT about 10 years ago even under the New Ayatollah/Revolutionary regime fully knowing Israel was NOT a signatory and already had Nukes.

That's right bubba, for the 179th time and two boards.... It's not the same no matter how many times you try and foist it.

 

[donsutherland1]

you attempt to paint iran as uncooperative with the UN-based IAEA...

I don't paint Iran as insufficiently uncooperative. The IAEA does and I have quoted the relevant text (italicized).

 

[Winston Smith]

Clearly they are uncooperative.
And had even been Caught about 5 years ago with an illegal Parallel weapons program and many, many, inspection refusals.
Thus Winston had to fade to .. ahem.. 'some controversy' after claiming otherwise.
In fact, Winston previously posting the Deflective objection to two specific inspectors as a strawman. As If that was the problem.

What you're reciting here is myth. They've never been caught with a weapons program, illegal or otherwise. What happened five years ago was that the IAEA resolved questions about trace amounts of weapons grade uranium from contaminated centrifuges and found no evidence of a weapons program.

 

[mbig]

What you're reciting here is myth. They've never been caught with a weapons program, illegal or otherwise. What happened five years ago was that the IAEA resolved questions about trace amounts of weapons grade uranium from contaminated centrifuges and found no evidence of a weapons program.

So you have dropped/no longer contest your previous claim that Iran has cooperated with the IAEA. (and that attempted strawman about 2 inspectorrs they didn't like)
and second...
The USA just recently caught on satellite an undeclared Iranian facility and was going before the UNSC with it.
When a few days later, just before the UN was to meet, did Iran 'declare' it despite the fact it had been there for years.

 

[Winston Smith]

So you have dropped/no longer contest your previous claim that Iran has cooperated with the IAEA. (and that attempted strawman about 2 inspectorrs they didn't like)
and second...
The USA just recently caught on satellite an undeclared Iranian facility and was going before the UNSC with it.
When a few days later, just before the UN was to meet, did Iran 'declare' it despite the fact it had been there for years.

All I've said about their cooperation is that it's a complicated issue. I'd be happy to discuss it if you'd like. Not sure what you mean about strawmen. What I've said, contrary to others' claims here, is that Iran does allow inspectors and they have not found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. I think it's rather important to get these facts straight, especially since we may repeat our mistake in Iraq and find ourselves on another WMD goose chase if we don't.

 

[mbig]

All I've said about their cooperation is that it's a complicated issue. I'd be happy to discuss it if you'd like.

We have discussed it.
It's over.
Iran, contrary to your claim, has not cooperated with the IAEA. Certainly not in the level asked for or needed to prevent sanctions or what is happening as we speak.. the undisguised development of Iranian Nukes.

Not sure what you mean about strawmen.....

Yes, you must be sure as it was your gambit I exposed.
You tried to post Iran's recent objection to two inspectors as the reason for any lack of cooperation; rather than the much broader Truth
So that we all understand again the game you attempt play board-wide.

 

[Agent Ferris]

You obviously have forgotten that the US supported Pol Pot in the early, mid and late-Seventies, and the Eighties and Nineties.

Um, bull****, proof or it didn't happen.

 

[Agent Ferris]

If that's what you need to believe in order to rationalize the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, it's your privilege. But here's the reality:

Cool war: Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction, By Joy Gordon (Harper's Magazine)

Thanks for the figures provided to the U.N. by the Baathist regime, which even if true are the direct result of Saddam building lavish palaces for himself while the masses starved and allowing basic infastructure to go into disrepair as punishment for the uprisings following the first Gulf War.

Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn't about security | McClatchy

Specifically says economic warfare against Hamas, which in turn would be a security based initiative.

 

[Winston Smith]

We have discussed it.
It's over.
Iran, contrary to your claim, has not cooperated with the IAEA. Certainly not in the level asked for or needed to prevent sanctions or what is happening as we speak.. the undisguised development of Iranian Nukes.

Iran's cooperation has gone well beyond its obligations under the NPT. They voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment and acceded to the Additional Protocols even though they weren't required to do so. They enabled the inspectors to verify that none of the secretly acquired uranium, which is what started the controversy, was diverted to military use. The inspectors were also able to resolve the plutonium issue, and so far they haven't found any evidence of a weapons program.

Yes, you must be sure as it was your gambit I exposed.
You tried to post Iran's recent objection to two inspectors as the reason for any lack of cooperation; rather than the much broader Truth
So that we all understand again the game you attempt play board-wide.

If I attribute a weak argument to you so I can refute it, that's a straw man. If you actually make a weak argument, you don't get to go back and call it a straw man after I refute it. LOL...sorry, that's not how it works.

The bottom line is, Iran does allow inspections and they have not been caught with an illegal weapons program.

 

[Winston Smith]

Thanks for the figures provided to the U.N. by the Baathist regime, which even if true are the direct result of Saddam building lavish palaces for himself while the masses starved and allowing basic infastructure to go into disrepair as punishment for the uprisings following the first Gulf War.

The infrastructure wasn't just "allowed to go into disrepair." It was systematically obliterated by the US, as is documented in the link I posted. There's nothing Saddam could have done about that. The money he spent on palaces was a drop in the bucket compared to what it would have taken to undo the damage caused by air strikes.

Specifically says economic warfare against Hamas, which in turn would be a security based initiative.

And it's done by attacking the economy of Gaza in general, which would be a form of illegal collective punishment.

 

[donsutherland1]

They voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment...

Iran has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment. From Reuters:

But its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process which can have both civilian and military uses, has drawn four rounds of U.N. sanctions as well as separate U.S. measures.

Iran says to set terms for any new nuclear talks | Reuters

 

[Winston Smith]

Iran has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment. From Reuters:



Iran says to set terms for any new nuclear talks | Reuters

Yes, they are refusing now. It was suspended from 2003 to 2005 when they were observing the Additional Protocols as a confidence-building measure.

 

[donsutherland1]

Yes, they are refusing now. It was suspended from 2003 to 2005 when they were observing the Additional Protocols as a confidence-building measure.

I thought you were referring to the recent negotiations and timeframe that led to the most recent UN Security Council Resolution (UNSC Res. 1929). In the not so recent past, Iran did temporarily suspend enrichment activities. Unfortunately, during that brief period, it did not provide the full transparency that was needed by the IAEA to address international concerns related to Iran's nuclear activities. In fact, the IAEA consistently raised issues about Iran's lack of transparency during that period and immediately afterward, e.g., in its February 27, 2006 report.

Moreover, at times Iran has acted in bad faith e.g., failing to make material disclosures to the IAEA. Most recently, Iran disclosed construction of the Fordow enrichment facility in Qom in September 2009 even as it had been required to do so much earlier. On that issue, the IAEA declared, "Even if, as stated by Iran, the decision to construct the new facility at the Fordow site was taken in the second half of 2007, Iran’s failure to notify the Agency of the new facility until September 2009 was inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement."

The combination of a persistent lack of Iranian transparency, periodic bad faith, and continuing enrichment activities have not only prevented the IAEA from completing its work, it has caused international concerns about the nature of Iran's nuclear activities to increase over time.

 

[Winston Smith]

I thought you were referring to the recent negotiations and timeframe that led to the most recent UN Security Council Resolution (UNSC Res. 1929). In the not so recent past, Iran did temporarily suspend enrichment activities. Unfortunately, during that brief period, it did not provide the full transparency that was needed by the IAEA to address international concerns related to Iran's nuclear activities. In fact, the IAEA consistently raised issues about Iran's lack of transparency during that period and immediately afterward, e.g., in its February 27, 2006 report.

Moreover, at times Iran has acted in bad faith e.g., failing to make material disclosures to the IAEA. Most recently, Iran disclosed construction of the Fordow enrichment facility in Qom in September 2009 even as it had been required to do so much earlier. On that issue, the IAEA declared, "Even if, as stated by Iran, the decision to construct the new facility at the Fordow site was taken in the second half of 2007, Iran’s failure to notify the Agency of the new facility until September 2009 was inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement."

The combination of a persistent lack of Iranian transparency, periodic bad faith, and continuing enrichment activities have not only prevented the IAEA from completing its work, it has caused international concerns about the nature of Iran's nuclear activities to increase over time.

I agree with most of that, but we need to remember what obligations both parties have and don't have under the NPT and take it in that context. The treaty is a voluntary, quid pro quo agreement. States without nuclear weapons agree not to develop them in exchange for certain assurances from the nuclear powers. The nuclear powers agreed to respect Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, to actively assist them in developing a peaceful nuclear program, to work toward nuclear disarmament, and not to engage in threats or other actions that would contribute to nuclear escalation. The Safeguards Agreement was developed as an ancillary process for verifying compliance with the NPT. A violation of the SG is technically a violation of the NPT, but only in a collateral sense.

The whole arrangement is analogous to a voluntary contract. This is important because most of the dialogue in the US assumes that Iran is bound by something analogous to a criminal law with the IAEA as enforcer. This is misleading. In fact, no nation was required to sign the NPT, and anyone who did sign it can withdraw from it if they wish. So, the fact that Iran is cooperating in any way is a sign of good faith in and of itself.

The reason Iran began secretly importing uranium in the first place was that the US blocked the transfer of nuclear material to Iran, including some that had already been paid for, and induced other countries to do the same. This was a violation of the NPT on our part. It left the Iranians no other choice if they wanted to develop nuclear energy. After they declared their facilities, the IAEA verified that none of the material was diverted to military uses. This is the only legitimate purpose of the inspections program, and transparency is only required to the extent necessary for that purpose. Iran has never agreed to make its activities absolutely transparent.

The current problem stems from America's insistence that Iran give up its uranium enrichment outright. This is not an obligation under the NPT, and in fact the right to enrich is specifically guaranteed. Iran's concern is that we'll use the inspection process to gather information for a military assault. They're also now accusing us of rigging the inspections with fake documents and manipulating the process in other ways. These concerns are absolutely valid in light of our threats against Iran and the fact that we used forged documents to build our case against Iraq in 2002.

Iran has made several offers, including one for complete normalization of relations with the US, if we'll give them a non-aggression pact. We've ignored the offers and have insisted all along that the termination of their enrichment program is the only basis for talks. In this latest development Iran has accepted a deal that's substantially the same as one we proposed, and we've condemned it. In this context, there's a strong inference that we're not serious about anything except using the NPT as a pretext for regime change, as we did in Iraq. The clearer this becomes, the less reason Iran has to cooperate.

 

[mbig]

Iran's intentions, and whose fault this crisis is, were made quite clear 5 years go (and since) when Iran was offered FREE offsite enrichment by the EU to defuse the crisis and allow Iran peaceful use of Nuclear power.

Of course Iran didn't (and never would) take that deal even tho a windfall, as it would prevent diversion of materials to a military/weaps program.
I believe the Russians offerered as well.

Not coincidentally, Iran without question/denial is also developing a medium and long range missile program to deliver aforementioned Nukes. Everyone including Iran knows the implications of Both programs. The use of the latter without the former, not very coherent.

So let's not be intentionally naive or Disingenuous.

 

[Winston Smith]

Iran's intentions, and whose fault this crisis is, were made quite clear 5 years go (and since) when Iran was offered FREE offsite enrichment by the EU to defuse the crisis and allow Iran peaceful use of Nuclear power.

Of course Iran didn't (and never would) take that deal even tho a windfall, as it would prevent diversion of materials to a military/weaps program.
I believe the Russians offerered as well.

Not coincidentally, Iran without question/denial is also developing a medium and long range missile program to deliver aforementioned Nukes. Everyone including Iran knows the implications of Both programs. The use of the latter without the former, not very coherent.

So let's not be intentionally naive or Disingenuous.

Maybe, but there are other good reasons for them to be wary of deals like this. They've had serious difficulties with outsourcing enrichment in the past. They get the material back years later or not at all. The US and its allies have a history of blocking their access, yet we're asking them to hand over everything they have. If we don't follow through, they're dead in the water.

And the great windfall they get from this is...exactly nothing. We're demanding that they give up their independent right to nuclear power without receiving anything they don't already have, not even a guarantee that we won't attack them.

 

[donsutherland1]

Maybe, but there are other good reasons for them to be wary of deals like this. They've had serious difficulties with outsourcing enrichment in the past. They get the material back years later or not at all. The US and its allies have a history of blocking their access, yet we're asking them to hand over everything they have. If we don't follow through, they're dead in the water.

And the great windfall they get from this is...exactly nothing. We're demanding that they give up their independent right to nuclear power without receiving anything they don't already have, not even a guarantee that we won't attack them.

If Iran is genuinely interested in a diplomatic solution, then it should:

1) Accept an arrangement whereby its uranium is enriched outside the country. Such a deal could involve Russia, with whom Iran has a better relationship than with the U.S.
2) Accept a robust mechanism for verification with respect to its nuclear activities.

In exchange, Iran would:

1) Be allowed to maintain a peaceful civil nuclear program.
2) Receive assurances that the West would not provide military assistance to factions within Iran that seek regime change.

Over time, as confidence builds should performance justify such an increase in confidence, there would be opportunities for improving bilateral relations with numerous states.

Even as time has continued to pass, I don't believe Iran is so close to the nuclear weapons threshold that diplomacy is no longer feasible. Therefore, for the international community, diplomacy should remain the preferred course of action. Such diplomacy should be backed by coercive sanctions (and the fourth round, though possibly the maximum of what the Security Council could approve, fall short of those that I have in mind). By coercive, I mean those that that target Iran's access to refined crude oil products and restrict its ability to export crude oil. IMO, only those sanctions would have an impact of a sufficient magnitude that Iran would find it in its interests to fully cooperate with the IAEA. If such sanctions fail, and that is always a possibility, much less palatable alternatives would need to be examined. With the passage of time and delay in imposing truly coercive sanctions, Iran could wind up in a sprint toward attaining a nuclear weapons capability. Should Iran reach that proverbial homestretch, no amount of sanctions would have much opportunity to divert Iran's efforts. By then, it would be too late. Such sanctions, deep as they might be, would require some degree of time to take their toll to have a chance to produce the desired outcome.