Obvious lies for an illegal War of Aggression against Iran are moving forward just as they did for war against Iraq. Lie is the proper word because this article will demonstrate the KNOWN FALSEHOODS foisted upon us by Orwellian politicians and their prostitute media. Topics of this article:
- IAEA report content from November 16, 2009 and history of reporting regarding Iran.
- IAEA resolution against Iran.
- Purpose of IAEA.
- Explanation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
- “Mainstream” media and political spin.
- Analysis and what the US public should do
IAEA reporting: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recent report on Iran explains Iran’s new facility in Qom as designed for energy-grade nuclear material of 5% enrichment with no capability for weapons-grade refinement of 85%+ enrichment. The Director General of IAEA, Mohammad El-Baradei, reported the facility, “is nothing to be worried about.”
This follows a history of IAEA verification that all inspections of Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, including surprise inspections, have all been in compliance with NPT protocol since 2003. In 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors issued a similar resolution to the current one: while finding no issue of NPT non-compliance they complained of the following:
In order to help the Director General to resolve outstanding questions and provide the necessary assurances, urges Iran:
(i) To implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General in his report, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and development locations;
(ii) To re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related activity, as in
GOV/2005/64, and reprocessing activity;
(iii) To reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;
(iv) Promptly to ratify and implement in full the Additional Protocol;
(v) Pending completion of the ratification of the Additional Protocol to continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol, which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;
This means that despite no violations of NPT, equipment that could only produce energy-grade refinement and not weapons-grade, and constant inspections by IAEA, the Board of Governors requested Iran to stop enriching nuclear material in violation of Iran’s NPT treaty rights. This is the history of claims of Iran’s “defiance.”
Examples of IAEA confirmation of Iran’s compliance for the purpose of NPT of developing nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons:
In July, 2007 Iran and IAEA agreed to additional actions beyond NPT to assure the international community of absolute compliance. In August 2007 IAEA announced, “The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.”
Dr. El-Baradei said on September 7, 2007, “For the last few years we have been told by the Security Council, by the board, we have to clarify the outstanding issues in Iran because these outstanding issues are the ones that have led to the lack of confidence, the crisis…We have not come to see any undeclared activities or weaponisation of their programme.”
In June 2005, Bruno Pellaud, former IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards, reported to Swissinfo if Iran was intent on building a nuclear bomb: "My impression is not. My view is based on the fact that Iran took a major gamble in December 2003 by allowing a much more intrusive capability to the IAEA. If Iran had had a military programme they would not have allowed the IAEA to come under this Additional Protocol. They did not have to."
An area of confusion that “mainstream media” do not clarify is that Iran volunteered in 2003 for “Additional Protocol.” Iran implemented these additional measures without their Parliament authorizing Additional Protocol as a treaty. This means the signing of the document is the same as a US president signing a treaty but not having approval of the Senate: the document has zero weight of law. When the US continued refusal to cooperate for Iran’s nuclear energy program and rhetoric for nuclear war, including strategic planning for nuclear weapons use against "an enemy threatening to use WMD," and IAEA issued a report negating NPT by refusing Iran to develop their own fuel, Iran withdrew from Additional Protocol in 2006. IAEA recognized Iran’s optional and non-legally binding initial signature, but refuses to recognize their legally-correct option to withdraw or call for enforcement of US cooperation. Hence, this is the sole area of IAEA claim that Iran is “not in compliance.” This leads to our next point.
IAEA resolution condemning Iran: Legally, there is one point of contention between IAEA governance and Iran: whether Iran has the right to withdraw from their voluntary acceptance of additional protocol. IAEA governance says they do not, Iran says they do. Under all other aspects of lawful treaty response of NPT, Iran is in full compliance. However, on November 27, 2009, IAEA governors passed a resolution condemning Iran. This included a lot of rhetoric we will explore after visiting the purpose of IAEA and NPT.
IAEA purpose: Organized in 1957 largely from US President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program, the purpose of IAEA is support for peaceful nuclear energy programs and action against weaponization of nuclear energy. The specific protocol for support of nuclear energy is spelled-out in NPT.
NPT: I write on NPT in detail here, and the summary of NPT is this: non-nuclear nations receive the right for nuclear energy in exchange for their agreement to be inspected and their promise not to obtain nuclear weapons. Nuclear nations promise to help non-nuclear nations develop nuclear energy and also promise to reduce their nuclear arsenals and stop further nuclear weapon development.
Iran received US assistance under the US-imposed dictator, the Shah Pahlavi (a "king"). When Iran deposed their king, the US withdrew their assistance and refused to refund billions of dollars Iran had paid. France also reneged on contracts without refunding Iran’s payments. The issues over Iran allowing other nations to develop their nuclear fuel is colored by this history of US and France still owing Iran billions of dollars, and refusing Iran’s offer to only allow a fuel exchange if their unprocessed uranium is simultaneously swapped with enriched fuel.
Iran asserts their NPT rights and is compliant for complete inspections, with the explained disagreement over their Additional Protocol. For the Qom plant, Iran is in compliance with NPT to inform IAEA within 180 days of operation. Additional Protocol requires disclosure upon planning.
Therefore, Iran is in compliance with the spirit and letter of NPT.
The US is out of compliance in the spirit and letter of NPT by refusing to honor previous contracts of energy assistance, refusing to offer new assistance, not reducing their nuclear weapon arsenal and offering verification to IAEA, proliferating nuclear weapons by arming Israel and openly developing new weapon technology. Israel refuses NPT participation and disclosure of their nuclear weapons.
“Mainstream” media and political spin: Neither report on the facts above to make the context and content clear. Both brazenly disinform of the history of US vicious control over Iran’s government. The US overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected government in 1953 and installed a dictator who ruled until 1979, killing tens of thousands of freedom-fighters. When the dictator fled to the US, the US refused to extradite him to Iran for mass murder in exchange for US hostages. While these negotiations were taking place, the US approved of Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980, supplying Saddam with intelligence and WMD: chemical and biological weapons in violation of international law. The US destroyed Iranian oil platforms and shot-down a commercial airliner in Iranian airspace. The war lasted until 1988, killing over 200,000 Iranians.
Rationally and objectively, all current US action and rhetoric should be viewed in light of the history of US hegemony, violent overthrow of Iran's democracy, dictatorship, invasion, and mass murder of Iranians. US corporate media and “leadership” of both political parties refuse to speak this glaring and insidious history of US destruction in Iran.
Also rationally and objectively, all US claims that Iranian President Ahmadinejad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” are confirmable lies. Reading the speech content and context confirms this to anyone taking 5 minutes to do so. US corporate media and “leadership” of both political parties refuse this obvious fact.
Given the history, including current lies, US corporate media and political response to Iran is predictable: paint their NPT compliance into a threat requiring “defensive” US military response. One possibility is a false flag attack to achieve another takedown of Iran’s government.
President Obama declares Iran’s compliant Qom facility in the press conference below as being aligned for weapons, against any rational technical analysis of IAEA’s report and independent evaluation. This charge is echoed even in Progressive media by “un-named sources” with additional lies from Arianna Huffington and scary weapons footage in the MSNBC clip below. El-Baradei framed the disagreement over Additional Protocol at a “dead end,” which the Wall Street Journal and political leadership spin as Iran “not living up to its obligations.” These are lies of commission and omission.
"This is a signal that patience is running out. We can't continue talks for talks' sake. We can't have round after round of fruitless negotiations, circular negotiations that don't get us where we want to get." - Glyn Davies, US envoy to IAEA.
"Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out. If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences." - Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman.
The below video clips:
- President Obama, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown spinning Iran’s NPT-compliant Qom nuclear facility ominously despite zero evidence from IAEA and all 16 US intelligenc agencies of Iran developing nuclear weapons rather than nuclear energy. Again, all the safeguards of NPT are honored, just not the voluntary additional protocol that Iran withdrew when the US refused to honor their part of NPT to help Iran’s nuclear energy development.
- MSNBC showing “both sides” rather than crushing “wipe Israel off the map” as false, zero evidence of nuclear weapons, and verifying NPT compliance and additional protocol disagreement.
- Scott Ritter, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the UN in Iraq who witnessed the lies tht preceded war with Iraq trying to explain the facts in this article.
- PuppetGov’s depiction of the Orwellian nature of Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama and the Bush administration arguing for justification of war with Iran while still in two Wars of Aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Analysis and call to Americans: While it's easy to document and verify the history of US aggression in Iran, NPT compliance, and the same fraudulent spin that lead to unlawful Wars of Aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s impossible to know what’s really going on behind the scenes of political power. We observe presidents of both parties speaking and acting to legitimize US Presidents acting beyond the law in the name of "national security." This is in direct oposition to the Founding Fathers' admonitions of limited government under the US Constitution to prevent future tyranny. For those interested in exploring the hypothesis of both parties working toward an accepted form of Executive dictatorship (what the leader says rather than the law), I recommend watching Fall of the Republic.
What’s clearly missing if we want government under law is law enforcement. Congress will not stop and prosecute torture, nor stop and prosecute lies that preceded illegal Wars of Aggression. The same political and media actors are now repeating aggressive rhetoric for an equally unlawful War of Aggression on Iran. A viable option is for all American men and women in the military, law enforcement, and government to honor their oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to refuse and stop all unlawful orders and acts per their legal authority. This can include acts of sheriffs, marshals, state governments prosecuting for murder of their residents from war-causing lies of members within federal government, and anything else within lawful authority.
Ultimately, I see our greatest policy response as Truth and Reconciliation to peel-away those involved in harmful and/or illegal acts to embrace a “Scrooge conversion” with their contribution of invaluable information to fully disclose and end these damaging programs.
As always, please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.
Comments
The unanswered questions revolve around Russia and China. What is their true position? They know the above facts, yet they went along with this IAEA censure--for now.
Then Russia agrees to deliver the S-300 defensive missile systems. And when is the Bushwehr reactor set to start?
China is of course playing rope-a-dope, waiting to pick up the pieces no matter how it turns out.
Meanwhile everybody ignores Israel's blatant nuclear blackmail.
A slow day, where are kurt & wow, lol. Storey it's been explained to me that Russia and China are both controlled by the same HiddenPowers that run the Western world.
Never let facts get in the way of a good narrative, right, Herman?
" While these negotiations were taking place, the US approved of Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980, supplying Saddam with intelligence and WMD: chemical and biological weapons in violation of international law."
Wrong - although the US allowed the sale from private entities of some PRECURSORS for chemical weapons and some bio-research germs, it never supplied actual chem or bio weapons. (The US didn't even have bio-weapons to provide.)
The embassy hostages were never offered as a swap for the Shah; Iran's Revolutionary government unilaterally abrogatted all treaties made by the Shah....
And once again, I will point out that THIS WAS ALL REPORTED EXTENSIVELY BETWEEN 1979 AND 1991. Do a Nexis search, for crying out loud!
Some history teacher you must have been. *SMH*
Wow:
Given the big picture of rhetoric mirroring unlawful War of Aggression on Iraq, an obvious lie of “wiping Israel off the map” that anyone can prove in 5 minutes by reading Ahmadinejad’s speech, and conflating a legal nuclear energy program with nuclear weapons’ fear, you focus on those points???
Why on Earth would you do so rather than demanding rule under US law to stop Wars of Aggression? Hmm?
But ok, perhaps you’re myopic. Perhaps. Well, yes, the US provided WMD through allowing sales of components that should be safely put together into a delivery system on site. The US doesn’t allow inspections of its chemical and biological weapons, so I don’t know how you make the statement the US did not have those. The first negotiations for hostage release were for the extradition of the Shah; negotiated by proxies for Iran’s Foreign Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh. That’s the history I’ve read. What do you have? And this would be a new deal independent of any previous treaty.
Again you demonstrate your ignorance of WMDs with comments like, "...the US provided WMD through allowing sales of components that should be safely put together into a delivery system on site.
No... precursors are several steps removed from that, almost all have legitimate uses as well and most of the chem stuff came from Europe anyway. None of the bio sold from US firms was ever weaponized, as far as we and UNSCOM ever determined.
We don't allow inspections? Guess those Soviet scientists and military officers were just mirages, huh?
Again, your history is wrong - GoatsBuzzard's offer was see if he could negotiate about the hostages IF and AFTER the Shah was returned - he claimed the government wasn't holding hostages in the first place.
As for the translation of the Ahmadinejad quote, that's been nicely spread all over the 'net - and equally disputed by other experts.
Me, I don't much care about a single quote - his whole pattern demonstrates deceit.
And why, in YOUR myopic view, do so easily ignore the abuses of the Iranian regime against its own people as well as others, not to mention its documented support of numerous terrorist actions?
Wow:
The US allowed sales of these components for four years after the UN confirmed Iraq’s use of biological and chemical weapons use on Iranians. The US allowed Iraq to invade Iran and took zero steps as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to stop a War of Aggression. The US aided the mass murder of over 200,000 Iranians. That’s the history, wow.
And that history followed US refusal to extradite the Shah for mass murder of Iranians and massive theft of Iranian tax money. And that history followed the US overthrow of Iran’s democracy from 1953 to 1979.
That’s the history: violent US action to destroy Iran’s government by coup and War of Aggression from 1953-1979 and 1980-1988.
And wow, read Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech for yourself. Take five minutes. Tell us what it says.
We all notice, wow, that you ignore these important issues to discuss minutia and change the subject of the article to demonize the target of a third round of US unlawful aggression.
Nah, I focus on FACTS - like you once again spreading false information: The UN NEVER "confirmed Iraq’s use of biological and chemical weapons use on Iranians" - ONLY chemical weapons. Iraq didn't even have any weaponized bio agents until after the Iran-Iraq War had ended.
Fact: Students the Iranian government claimed were not operation on government orders seized the embassy and demanded the Shah be extradited when he went to New york for medical treatment. But by the time the Iranian GOVERNMENT formally filed extradition paperwork, the Shah was in PANAMA - which, believe it or not, was an independent country even then. (One of YOUR favorite sources says Omar Torrijos was assassinated by the CIA.) The US had no authority to extradite the Shah.
I don't read Farsi and, from your writings, neither do you. And different experts read that particular speech in different ways.
Either way, it doesn't change all the other sins of the Iranian government.
Cont: Why do you ignore Iran’s compliance of NPT (with Additional Protocol explained in the article) while the US threatens nuclear war? I don’t want you to read an analysis of the “wipe Israel off the map” speech, READ THE SPEECH YOURSELF AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE. You want facts, you say, wow? READ THE SPEECH, which is the primary source and conservative academic practice to get the best understanding of the facts. Until you do, you literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
Oh, true, the UN confirmed chemical weapons use that the US didn’t stop and allowed sales for their creation. The US sold them bio material and other agencies and governments reported their use rather than the UN. And the US installed and protected Iran’s dictator for 26 years rather than extradite him for obvious mass murder when they had the opportunity and didn’t lift a finger to have Panama and/or the UN extradite.
Wow: You willfully ignore the biggest facts and focus on details that miss the big picture. I trust readers to be helped through study of your fallacious rhetoric that evades the purpose of the article. I hope my responses to you help readers engage with similar propaganda.
Wow, why do you ignore the context of the history of US destruction of Iran’s government from 1953-1979 and willful evasion of UN Security Council responsibility to stop Iraq’s War of Aggression from 1980-1988? More:
No, I focus on the FACT that YOU have problems with FACTS and are YOURSELF the purveyor of PROPAGANDA, not TRUTH.
Cite a quote where this administration or the previous one threatened Iran with nuclear war.
Cite ANY evidence the Iraq used bio weapons against Iran. (Hint: They didn't even have any weaponized until that war was over.)
Explain how YOUR preferred translation of a speech you cannot read in Farsi is more accurate than others who interpret it differently.
Justify Iran's financing of multiple acts of terrorism - or its abuse of its own citizens.
And JUST ONCE quit lying that I have ignored US involvement in Iran before 1980 & US involvement in the Iran-Iraq War; address MY accusation that you are completely ignoring the wealth and breadth of journalistic reporting about those involvements that was done in the '60s, '70s, '80s AND '90s in an effort to support your patently false thesis that it was not covered by the major media.
Wow: So you refuse to read the speech that is the basis of threat of war? This is conservative historical inquiry and practice. Why do you refuse? Take any translation you want, wow, cite it, and tell us what you find. Or, explain why you won’t take the translation of your choice to verify this claim that Obama, Bush, McCain, Clinton and most of the rest of political “leaders” from Left and Right are lying to the American public and the world, threatening an illegal War of Aggression based on a verifiable lie.
The details, secondary to threat of another illegal War of Aggression that you are not outraged by and somehow want to divert attention from: click the link for nuclear war in the article and google Clinton discussing obliterating Iran. Google Biological Weapons use during Iraq war. Operation Ajax, the CIA action that destroyed Iran’s democracy from 1953-1979 wasn’t declassified until 2000. Google the secret cia history of the iran coup, among many for the CIA’s admission.
CITE the damn source for your Iran-Iraq War bio claim - because I can show UNSCOM, Iraqi, Congressional and scores of other documents that show Iraq did not have usable bio-weapons before that war ended.
And WHICH FRAKIN'SPEECH are you on about? Ahmadinejad’s? I've read several different translations/interpretations; I find the argument that he wants to eliminate Israel substantive based on his OTHER statements and actions.
(And just as an aside, I've long argued that the pro-Israel lobby has way too much influence in our foreign policy; that folks like Perle and Wolfowitz place Israeli national security interests ahead of US ones.)
But I'll challenge you again to cite an administration statement threatening nuclear war against Iran - or admit you are blowing smoke.
As for Ajax, CIA declassified it because all the major details were already in the public domain.
I'm not outraged because I place the probabilty of a war with Iran as exceedingly low; the Pentagon certainly doesn't want another war and neither does Congress.
I'm much more concerned with making the best possible exit from the Iraq mess and determining if there is any chance for a positive outcome in Afghanistan.
Wow:
Yes, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech of October, 2005. That is the basis of the “wipe Israel off the map” lies. So you admit the speech is about regime change in Israel in the historical context he discussed of regime change from the Shah in his own country, the USSR and Saddam’s Iraq?
And that this means “leaders” from the Dems and Reps are lying about that claim, as well as the “mainstream media”?
Let’s start with this critical fact first.
If you think he means any kind of 'regime change' that would leave Jews in charge - or even Israel continuing to exist as a nation - you been drinking some serious kool-aid, dude.
No, I do NOT accept that as his meaning - any more than I misinterpret Iran's support of Hezbollah.
Wow: then you tell us, what does his speech say in context and content regarding the “wipe Israel off the map” claim repeated by political “leaders” Left and Right and “mainstream” media?
Explain it to us.
I think 'wipe Israel off the map' is reasonably accurate shorthand for his repeated statements indicating he thinks 'zionism' should be suppressed or eliminated and the current state of Israel become a Palestinian/Islamic state.
The fact that he actually NEEDS Israel to exist to maintain his internal sense of crises - and keep the mullahs over him happy - is only partially relevant.
no, wow, what does the speech say in content and context. This is the basis of the "wipe Israel off the map" claim and important to understand. I assert anyone who reads the speech can see this is a lie and document it. This is a huge deal because it shows "leaders" from Left and Right lying right in front of us in the same manner that they lied leading to war in Iraq. Once people see a lie this large clearly, it rips open the veil and other lies become obvious.
Explain the content and context of the speech, wow. You say facts are your focus. Explain this one; the most cited speech of alleged aggression toward Israel.
We're waiting.
Here, from your own preferred translation:
" We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
Pretty frakin' clear, except for those who refuse to see: The dude says Israel must go.
Now, YOU cite where the Obama administration has threatened to wage nuclear war against Iran - or admit you're a liar.
no, wow, you evade. What is the content and context of the speech. Explain it and specifically include the part of what is "translated" as "wipe Israel off the map." This is a central claim for war with Iran. Explain what that part means in context of the speech.
The snippet you include talks about regime change. Explain what "regime change" means in the speech. Your explanation, so far, is pathetic: "The dude says Israel must go."
Please. What you have so far is far from "pretty frakin clear."
First YOU cite that 'central claim for war with Iran' you keep claiming BUT NEVER CITING.
Your entire argument is based on a premise you refuse to show evidence for: that the administration wants/intends to have a war with Iran.
Until you can support THAT claim, I'm saying your entire discussion is pure bovine excrement.
Wow:
The two claims for war are “wiping Israel off the map” and Iran’s “nuclear program.” I’ve repeated them abundantly.
We’re waiting for you to confirm or refute that “wiping Israel off the map” is a lie from content and context of the speech. Then we'll discuss NPT compliance.
Evidence of US intent for war as a means to control Iran: CIA Operation Ajax to overthrow their democracy and install a dictator favorable to the US, 1953-1979. US backing Iraq with intelligence, destruction of oil platforms, loans, materials, and UN cover for an invasion of Iran that killed 200,000+, 1980-1988. Rhetoric of “axis of evil,” “all options are on the table,” “Iran will face the consequences,” “talk can go on only for so long,” “greatest threat to peace in the Middle East,” war games with Israel, previous administration leaders like UN Ambassador John Bolton saying we should attack Iran, the same rhetoric that preceded invasion of Iraq.
Watch the last video for more.
~~I~~ am waiting for you to actually CITE someone in the administration stating that we should GO TO WAR WITH IRAN.
YOU make the claim and move on to the justifications - BUT YOU'VE YET TO ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE SOMEONE ADVOCATING THAT WAR.
Unless you can show such a statement, I'm flat-out calling you a liar and a deliberate purveyor of disinformation.
Cont: A specific example beyond the numerous you can find in my citations, in this article, and the video, is from a Bush speech that you can read for analysis in the article, “Is Bush planning an expansion of the war across Iraq's borders, à la Nixon's invasion of Cambodia?”:
“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
How do you think he would destroy those networks from Iran? Given the history of rhetoric for war, that’s how it’s communicated.
Wow:
You still won’t confirm or deny “wipe Israel off the map” is an absolute lie. We notice you do not confirm leaders from the Right and Left, this administration and last are absolutely lying. And as to the topic of this article, Iran is in compliance with NPT
When will you answer?
As to your question, read my last response for examples we constantly hear. When the US is guilty of overthrowing Iran’s government from 1953-1979, aiding Iraq’s invasion that killed 200,000+ Iranians from 1980-1988, and now uses the same thinly-veiled language that preceded Iraq’s invasion along with two whopping lies of “threatening to destroy Israel” and having an illegal nuclear program, the threat of war on Iran is clear to at least me, if not to you. More…
Twit, Bush is out of office and, in case you missed it, did NOT go to war with Iran. The policy, both as articulated and as implemented, was to work from the Iraqi sides of the border.
I've stated that the 'wipe off the map' interpretation is consistent with Iranian actions and statements both before and after that particular speech.
You seem to think it is necessary to put everything from the US into historical context - yet ignore the Iranian context.
But again, we clearly see that you have NO quatation you can cite to support your claim that the administration is threatening nuclear war with Iran.
You are a liar, a propagandist and a purveyor of deliberate misinformation - therefore, ANY statement by you should be considered suspect.
What color is the sky out there today, BTW?
As for NPT - YOU may say they are in compliance and the Iranian government may say they are in compliance - but the IAEA says they are NOT, as do most governments araound the world.
I'm fascinated by your flexible belief system - you believe the government would do a better job directly running the monetary system and serving as employer of last resort, yet apparently are ready to believe the mouthpieces of Iran's mullahs over every elected official in the West; ready to believe a giant conspiracy of both parties, two adminstrations and the entire news media to create an excuse for wars that have had little benefit for the US; and ready to believe pseudo-scientists bought and paid for by the petrochemical industry about climate issues.
Wow:
1. Be polite or I’ll delete your comments.
2. Bush went to unlawful war, with Democrats’ permission, with Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re discussing threats of war with Iran and I’ve made my case that the rhetoric is the same on top of history of coup and war with Iran. You are welcome to view history and current rhetoric as you want.
3. No, wow, you refuse to explain what “wipe Israel off the map” means in the speech specifically and the context. As this is the basis of claims that Iran threatens the existence of Israel, and the claim is an obvious lie, it’s an important fact you reject.
4. Apparently my link to US military planning is too complex for you. Try looking up Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations to see US published material to use nuclear weapons against “enemies who threaten to use WMD.” That would apply to Iran.
No wow, you’re wrong about NPT. Read the article: IAEA reports Iran in compliance with NPT. I discuss the more complicated Additional Protocol in the article, which is the sole area for arguments of out of compliance that gets conflated with NPT. NPT and Additional Protocol are two different areas.
Yes, our political “leadership” of both parties, spanning multiple administrations, along with corporate media are indeed Orwellian. I submit my evidence in each case you list in specific articles, just as I do here.
wow- Who exactly is Ahmajenad and Why is he "saying" the things the Western monopoly press quotes him as saying? And why in the world do isreil and Iran "need each other"?
IAEA, 27 Nov.:
(j) Noting with serious concern that, contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the requirements of the Security Council, Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol
nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues of concern, which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme,
Looks like a declaration on non-compliance to me.
nut, the president of Iran usually is speaking for domestic consumption.
And both the mullahs who run Iran and the Israeli government "need" a boogy man to justify much of what they do.
Wow: the “remaining issues of concern” is not within NPT. If you want to make the case of NPT violation, list the specific violation. IAEA’s wording points to their request for Iran to put in writing a promise that their plants are all for nuclear energy and not weapons, if I remember correctly. NPT already secures that promise.
IAEA: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Resolution adopted on 24 September 2005
"1. Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency’s Statute;..."
***
IAEA found Iran in non-compliance 24 September 2005. That has never been rescinded.
Q.E.D.
wow- "domestic consumption"? Please explain....
nut: Speaking to IRANIANS, using the claimed threat of Israel to justify Iranian government policies. Saddam Hussein used to make a great boogyman, especially when he represented an actual threat in the 1980s.
THAT plain enough for you?
wow-Is Karzai a legitimately elected leader in Afgh? Why did they want the Taliban out, and why did they never catch Bin Laden?
Answered (multiple times) elsewhere; short versions:
Legal enough under Afghan constitution.
Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld screwed up, more interested in Iraq than bin Laden.
wow:
I went back to IAEA's 2003 report, which was the basis of their 2005 complaint and document the specific problems IAEA stated. None of the complaints listed by IAEA in 2005 had any violations of NPT by Iran. I link the report; you can read it for yourself.
It seems similar to the recent IAEA resolution that also condemns Iran for no NPT violation. IAEA insists on two things outside of NPT: no enrichment and Additional Protocol. That's the basis of "out of compliance" rhetoric.
My statement was that the IAEA considers Iran in non-compliance.
I repeat:
Resolution adopted on 24 September 2005
"1. Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency’s Statute;..."
***
IAEA found Iran in non-compliance 24 September 2005. That has never been rescinded.
Q.E.D.
*****
You may disagree with their conclusions, but the IAEA considers Iran to be in non-compliance. Period. Full stop.
I suspect their teams of international law experts trumps your teaching certificate.
Wow:
Yes, IAEA considers Iran in non-compliance and they have the authority to make that declaration. Their authority trumps mine as a spectator, indeed.
My point is that their declaration is in Orwellian contradiction to the actual evidence. This is a pattern of what I see as clear lies for war. We need a critical mass of public and political action, or this pattern will continue and escalate.
The US was lied into war with Iraq and Afghanistan. We torture. We’ve thrown-out habeas corpus under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – and that’s been applied to American citizens and argued up to the Supreme Court. The rhetoric for war with Iran conflates nuclear energy with weapons when IAEA and all 16 US intelligence agencies find perfect compliance for non-weapon use. Ahmadinejad’s speech is contrived to threaten Israel. US military policy allows first-use nuclear weapons against “enemies threatening use of WMD;” that seems like a set-up to at least terrorize Iran to be nuked.
Glad you finally admit Iran is in non-compliance as determined by the IAEA - something you've repeatedly attempted to deny.
As for the rest, I'll completely disagree on Afghanistan and repeat that Iraq was less about lies than about self-deception by senior administration officials.
As for Iran, you're attempting to take a long-standing policy that most recently was used as an implied threat against Iraq in the run-up to Desert Storm - almost 20 years ago.
You've yet to cite a single member of the current administration - or even the previous one - who has issued even an implied threat to Iran; claiming such a threat exists is dishonest and deceitful.
Wow:
Readers will have to determine for themselves the validity of IAEA’s judgment of the facts as listed in the article. If Americans never challenged bogus official proclamations, we’d still be a British colony. I’ll address Afghanistan in that article’s comments.
I also trust the readers to look at the disclosed evidence for Iraq and determine if that evidence could be viewed as anything other than BS. I say the evidence speaks for itself and encourage readers’ examination.
For Iran, I trust readers to read the quotes in this article and videos and compare to quotes before invasion of Iraq for level of threat. I also trust readers to click the links to nuclear war policy in the article that include US policy to nuke a nation that threatens use of WMD. US leaders from the Left and Right lie about a speech made by Iran’s president to “wipe Israel off the map” and talk about nuclear weapons development when there is no evidence. This means we’re threatening Iran.
You can 'determine' whatever you want - but the LEGAL authority is the IAEA - and they consider Iran in non-compliance, despite your efforts to spin it otherwise.
Wow:
You are correct. I am arguing that given the objective facts in this case, IAEA is as legitimate in exercising their authority as British authority subjugating American colonists to unequal treatment as citizens, Nazi “leadership” in declaring their war with Poland as “defensive,” US policy defending slavery and unequal protection under the law, British policy of imperialism challenged by Gandhi, US authority declaring harsh interrogation tactics as legal and non-torture, US political leadership contriving specific statements of the Iran president as threatening Israel’s existence, US political leadership taking specific items of evidence and construing a policy of “pre-emptive self-defense” as a legal option for war.
I got on a roll, there; sorry. But you get the point. Wow: given the big picture, how should political leadership respond to IAEA’s declaration?
Given the facts as presented by the IAEA - they should support it.
Personally, I have little doubt that the current Iranian regime would have nuclear weapons if they could figure out a way to get them/make them. And I'm of the opinion that the only reason they do not is the international pressure, as applied through the IAEA - so as far as I'm concerned, we should support IAEA to the fullest.
I'm not familiar with the IAEA; who runs it or what the agendas may be. But I am wondering why it's apparently OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons (like Israel), but not others such as Iran?
Pawns, do some basic research and you'll find answers to both those questions.
wow- Can you suggest a web site or two?
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!