.
By Scott Ritter
(The Guardian) – The Qom plant, if current descriptions are accurate, cannot manufacture the basic feed-stock (uranium hexaflouride, or UF6) used in the centrifuge-based enrichment process. It is simply another plant in which the UF6 can be enriched.
Why is this distinction important? Because the IAEA has underscored, again and again, that it has a full accounting of Iran’s nuclear material stockpile. There has been no diversion of nuclear material to the Qom plant (since it is under construction). The existence of the alleged enrichment plant at Qom in no way changes the nuclear material balance inside Iran today.
Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama’s announcement concerning the Qom facility.
The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn’t until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence “scoop” provided by the US, but rather Iran’s own voluntary declaration. Iran’s actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama’s hurried press conference Friday morning.
While on the surface, Obama’s dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The “rules” Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the “additional protocol”) to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the “additional protocol” has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.
While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow”, he is technically and legally wrong.
Iran’s nuclear plant admission brings sanctions showdown nearer
President Obama speaks about UNSC Resolution 1887. Read the Speech [pdf]
Also read White House’s News Release [pdf]
Watch a UN webcast of the UN Security Council Summit [RealPlayer]
I doubt that nice Mr. Obama pointed out that the Iranaians sent a memo to the UN beofre the dramatic announcement telling them of the site. Or that a site only has to be declared 180 days before fissile material is to be introduced into it, and this one is reportedly under construction and now open to inspection. Lets see if the media have learned the lesson of cheerleading the Iraq war built on bluster and lies and wont just repeat it all again.
Nice and well timed distraction from domestic poltics for Brown and Obama
And it will no doubt please Benny “the butcher” Netanyahu and he may even stop building a couple of outhouses for some settlement or other.
“Lets see if the media have learned the lesson of cheerleading the Iraq war built on bluster and lies and wont just repeat it all again.“
They clearly haven’t. They are in full-blown hysteria mode over yet another manufactured crisis. I have the same feeling in the pit of my stomach that I had all during the year 2002 and the first three months of 2003 (actually, the feeling started on September 11, 2000 when they started within hours trying to implicate Iraq). This is a replay of the Iraq hype, only with even less justification – at least Saddam did have a history of aggression. Iran has not attacked another country for nearly 300 years.
In the mean time, as I said, the U.S. media are in full-blown hysteria mode, and even “progressives” like Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow are all wrought up about it. I constantly hear news readers and talking heads announcing that the secret facility was first revealed by Obama in his speech, and the IAEA found out about it from the U.S., despite the fact that moments before the same news program may have reported that Iran informed the IAEA days earlier. And of course, those who are willing to acknowledge that Iran reported the facility before Obama’s Big Reveal always assume that they only spoke to the IAEA because they knew Obama was going to let the cat out of the bag. It looks at least as likely that Obama’s timed his announcement when he did after learning that the IAEA already knew.
Scott is right – this is just political hype, and it scares me to death.
Forgot to point out that they are making a big issue of Obama putting pressure on Iran to allow inspectors into the new facility, the big meeting coming up with the five permanent SC members (plus Germany) where they plan to threaten Iran with heavier sanctions if they don’t allow inspectors. All this drama AFTER Iran has invited the inspectors to the facility and agreed to a full inspection protocol.
Thanks for doing your part to give us the facts. One has to hunt in the blogosphere to find these relevant facts.
The United States is a broken country.
I wish I could be optimistic but we are heading to a very dark place. So many are so certain war is the answer.
We would be remiss if we did not admit war is where this is heading.
Thanks for this, Oui. Too bad it is not on the main page.
Not reading any of this anywhere else but here.
Good work, Oui.
.
Speakers at the rally included New York Gov. David Paterson, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and former New York City mayor and one-time Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.
“The current Iranian regime is an affront to the civilized world,” Giuliani said. “It’s a disgrace and, of course, it’s a terrible menace not only to its own citizens but a terrible menace to all of us. All decent people should stand up against the Iranian regime.”
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to plan major rallies in September to press for sanctions.
Giuliani forget the 1 million Iranian deaths in the Saddam war supported by the Reagan administration in the 1980’s?
Or the thousands of Palestinians killed, wounded or denied a livelihood, housing, medical care in Gaza and the West Bank territories?
AIPAC
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Richard Silverstein is organizing a counter conference response to an anti-Iran conference to be held by the Jewish Federation in Seattle October 21. He needs help. Please check it out and contribute what you can.
In general Richard’s blog is worth a regular look by anyone interested in a courageous, knowledgeable, well-reasoned, well-articulated alternative Jewish view.
.
(Bloomberg) — Al-Qaeda has failed to carry out major attacks in recent months because of improved counterterrorism efforts, better intelligence and a reduced ability to recruit terrorists, a senior United Nations Security Council official said.
Intelligence-gathering and targeting operations have improved substantially in the eight years since the Sept. 11 attacks, leading to the capture or assassination of numerous key leaders of al-Qaeda and its related networks in Southeast Asia, Iraq and Pakistan, Barrett said in an address yesterday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Richard Barrett said al-Qaeda sees President Barack Obama as a threat because he represents a mixed-race, multicultural West and has extended a hand of engagement to the Muslim world.
The concern terrorist networks “have with Obama being elected is they can’t attract people” who don’t see the U.S. as quite the same enemy as before, he said.
Pakistan and Yemen remain two countries where there’s significant reason for concern, said Barrett, a former British intelligence official and a member of the UN Secretary- General’s Counterterrorism Implementation Task Force.
Terrorist networks are building strength in Pakistan, where Barrett said some Pakistani military and intelligence officials retain links with extremist Muslim groups.
Petraeus: Al Qaeda is diminished (AP)At the same time, terrorists who once sought haven in Afghanistan have found it harder to operate under pressure from U.S. and NATO forces and have migrated to neighboring Pakistan.
“Al-Qaeda has made the calculation that if they’re to put their chips on the table,” they are betting on the Pakistani Taliban, not their Afghan cousins, in part because the U.S. is unlikely to invade or occupy parts of Pakistan, he said.
Yemen, the poorest Arab nation and the ancestral homeland of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, has become a haven for al- Qaeda members from Saudi Arabia, which began a crackdown on the terrorist organization after a series of attacks in 2004.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
(JewishJournal.com) – A new survey shows that a majority of American Jews would support a U.S. military strike on Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons–a significant increase from a year ago.
Fifty-six percent of American Jews would support the “United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons,” according to the American Jewish Committee’s 2009 Annual Survey of Jewish Opinion. That’s an increase of 14 percentage points from the AJC survey taken in the fall of 2008. In addition, 66 percent of those surveyed said they would back an Israeli strike on Iran.
The AJC’s executive director, David Harris, speculated that there were two possible reasons for the shift in opinion on Iran. More American Jews may now be “aware of the seriousness and growing nature of the threat,” he said, or they might have “more confidence” in the Obama administration to handle a confrontation with Iran than they did with the Bush administration–which many believed had not properly handled the Iraq war.
American Jews are very close to the center. For instance, 49 percent of those surveyed favor the establishment of a Palestinian state, with 41 percent opposed.
Sixty percent favor the dismantlement of some or all of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, compared to 37 percent who say none; on the other hand, 58 percent say Israel should not be “willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction,” with just 37 percent in favor.
Religious denomination was the true variable, particularly on evaluations of President Obama.
Just 14 percent of Orthodox respondents said they approved of the Obama administration’s handling of U.S.-Israel relations, compared to 54 and 59 percent for Conservative and Reform Jews, respectively. And 13 percent said they approved of the president’s handling of the Iran nuclear issue, with 44 percent of Conservative Jews and 54 percent of Reform Jews feeling positively about the president. On a potential strike against Iran, however, there is general agreement among denominations in favor, ranging from 61 percent of Orthodox to 53 percent of Reform.
Nuclear Double Standard
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I embedded the video you linked to at the bottom of comment:
The fear tactics are working – lovely. It’s Iraq all over again.
Here’s Chris Floyd’s apt take on all this:
Gotta give Obama an A+ for this.
.
1200 Kg for medical isotope production???
HEU is also used as a target in reactors that produce medical isotopes; an estimated 85 kg of HEU is used for this purpose annually in reactors in Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and South Africa.
France, Eurodif and Iran’s nuclear program
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thanks for this Oui. The most important story I have read for months.