IAEA Finds no Proof of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program
In its April 28 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency mentioned the UNSC mandate to Iran of last February:
' • re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities,
including research and development, to be verified by the Agency;
• reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;
• ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol;
• pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional
Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;
• implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement
and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and
development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations.
Despite not being fully in compliance with these demands, Iran maintains that it is in fact fulfilling its obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.
The IAEA found no smoking gun.
Here is its conclusion, which others will not quote for you at such length:
' 33. All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and
content of Iran’s centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency’s knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.
34. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear
programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern. '
This ambiguity is being twisted by the Bush administration to make it seem as though Iran has done something illegal. The report can be read to say that there is no evidence that Iran is doing anything illegal.
In fact, under the NPT, countries do have the right to do the sort of experiments Iran is doing. Most of the complaints are not about substance but about something else.
Iran's president pledged to continue to cooperate with UN isnspectors.
More about Iran later. For now see the next item, where an Iraqi VP says all hell would break loose in Iraq if the US attacked Iran.
This is the site for the IAEA report (pdf).
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/29/2006 12:35:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
Dear Juan,
You say:
“This ambiguity is being twisted by the Bush administration to make it seem as though Iran has done something illegal. The report can be read to say that there is no evidence that Iran is doing anything illegal.
In fact, under the NPT, countries do have the right to do the sort of experiments Iran is doing. Most of the complaints are not about substance but about something else”
And I couldn’t agree more.
US Ambassador John Neocon Bolton had his prefab talking points ready: “This is a classic case of threat against international peace and security when it is combined with Iran's sponsorship of terrorism” which clearly smelled like yet another warmongering propaganda canard.
Today, faced with the tragic consequences of the Iraq quagmire and the rapid resurgence of jihadi Islamic fundamentalism from the Sinai peninsula’s posh and bobo resorts (the latter being closer to David War-Is-Peace Brooks’ heart but I’m digressing) to the inner cities and slums of Pakistan and Morocco that show the abysmal ineptness of President Bush and his gang of incompetent Neocon handlers, once cannot help recalling Brent Scowcroft’s prophetic warnings on Iraq in 2002…and the scorn with which his cautious conservative stance was received by Bush, Cheney & Co.
Back then, Neocon ideologue (and self-proclaimed “Iran expert”) Mike Ledeen summed up the Bush view in the columns of The National Review: “It's always reassuring to hear Brent Scowcroft attack one's cherished convictions […] He fears that if we attack Iraq “I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror...”
One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That's our mission”
Next stop: Teheran.
Yes, but aren't Iran's persistent blocking attempts and refusals of transparency in the face of credible doubt of any significance to you? The ambiguities in the report can also be credibly understood as acknowledging Iran's successful creation of a chinese wall between two parallel programs--a civilian one and a weapons program--the latter which the IAEA has been given no access to, and has no evidence with which to rebut the presumption of its existence. I am under the impression that this whole fight is phrased in terms of getting access so as to be able to affirmatively disprove the existence of a weapons program. And what is wrong with that, unless you have a problem with the presumption itself? Are you taking the position that Iran is not interested in a weapons program, ultimately?
jk:
There is nothing in the IAEA report about having found an Iranian military weapons program. They say they have been able to account for all the nuclear material. Iran is being inspected, and is offering the IAEA snap inspections.
There is no military program as far as I can tell, and the Supreme Jurisprudent has forbidden it by fatwa.
I'm open to contrary evidence. I have never, ever, seen any. It certainly isn't in this report.
I totally agree with your thoughts on showing Iraqis the original American ways. I think it may work. After spending a year over there, I know how unprepared they are. but they just don't understand. and as pragmatic Americans we want results yesterday.
Just to comment on the presumption that Iran has a military program.
And it is both unfortunate and ridiculous that Juan Cole has to do the press' job for it. Everyone should already know this and would if the press was doing its job.
Until February 2006, Iran offered snap inspections. There is no facility that the IAEA asked to see that it was not given access to according to the terms of the Additional Protocols.
Like Iraq, the US would claim to have positive information that this or that facility housed a nuclear program, the IAEA would go, and there would be no nuclear program.
Iran has offered to sign and ratify the additional protocols in exchange for its right to enrich being acknowledged. In that case it would be impossible for Iran to hide any parallel nuclear facility.
The US rejects that offer. The US has taken the position that Iran must not have the ability to enrich uranium. The US position has no basis in any treaty, law or in the precedent set by other countries that have acquired the necessary technology, even countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Romania that have been found with substantial NPT safeguards violations.
Iran said it would stop honoring the terms of the Additional Protocol if it was referred to the Security Council. Iran has not ratified the AP and has every right to stop honoring its terms and Iran did what it said it would do.
Iran has always said it would ratify the AP, which would make maintaining a secret program impossible, in exchange for an acknowledgement by the West of its right to domestically enrich uranium.
Post a Comment
<< Home