U.N. Nuclear Agency Calls Iran Inquiry ‘Dead End’

[jimmy olsen]

What now? Will anyone do anything? Increased sanctions, Israeli attack, or will Obama and the rest of the world finally admit they're not going to do anything about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/world/middleeast/27nuke.html?_r=1&hp

U.N. Nuclear Agency Calls Iran Inquiry 'Dead End'

By JACK HEALY
Published: November 26, 2009

The director of the United Nations nuclear watchdog warned Thursday that its investigation into Iran's nuclear program had "effectively reached a dead end" after more than a year of stonewalling by Tehran.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the departing director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued an unusually direct rebuke of Iran's intransigence in a speech in Vienna, saying that it had been more than a year since Iran had answered questions about the extent of its nuclear ambitions, including suspicions that it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," Dr. ElBaradei said in remarks to the nuclear agency's governors. "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."

The agency's 35-member board is expected to vote on a resolution criticizing Iran for failing to tell the agency about a uranium enrichment plant near the city of Qum until confronted by the West this fall with evidence of its existence. It would be the first time in nearly four years the United Nations body has passed a resolution against Iran's nuclear activities.

Iranian officials insist that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and European countries believe Tehran is enriching uranium with the ultimate aim of developing a nuclear weapon. International inspectors worry that Iran could be concealing other atomic facilities.

Dr. ElBaradei also said he was "disappointed" that Iran had not accepted a United Nations-brokered deal that would oblige it to send most of its low-enriched nuclear fuel abroad, where it would be processed and returned for use in a medical reactor.

The draft agreement was supported by the United States and European powers who saw it as a way to delay for a year any possibility that Iran could "sprint" to a nuclear weapons capacity, a possibility that has escalated tensions, particularly with Israel.

Dr. ElBaradei's remarks, which come just days before he steps down as head of the nuclear agency, seem to reflect his frustration with Tehran's failure to respond to his low-key approach to negotiations. In recent weeks, talks with Iran about the draft nuclear agreement have devolved into a back-and-forth of defiant statements from Iranian officials and admonishments from Western leaders, with no sign of an agreement in sight.

Dr. ElBaradei also seemed to offer a veiled dig at powers like the United States for refusing to share their intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, for fear of compromising intelligence or displaying all their cards to the Iranian government.

"It would help if we were able to share with Iran more of the material that is at the center of these concerns," Dr. ElBaradei said.

Still, he seemed to hold out hope that Iranian leaders might return to the table to defuse a standoff.

"The proposed agreement represents a unique opportunity to address a humanitarian need and create space for negotiations," he said. "This opportunity should be seized and it would be highly regrettable if it was missed."

[Neil]

Obama doesn't need to say anything.  He just needs to stall until they test a bomb.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Has anyone really doubted that anyone would be able to stop Iran from getting the bomb? No one wants to militarily invade Iran, an airstrike or two will likely only delay, not stop (and to be honest, I'd be surprised if an airstrike did occur. Israel hit facilities in Iraq and Syria when both were well behind where Iran is now), and Russia seems to think it's in their best interests for every country hostile to America to get nuclear weapons.

[Faeelin]

I am shocked. Now as soon as someone gets me a viable plan to deal with this that doesn't cause the Straits to close and the global economy to collapse get back to me.

[Sheilbh]

I believe Obama - or someone from the White House - has said they're trying to prepare a plan for 'crippling' sanctions.  The most useful would be to stop petrol sales to Iran (Iran's a large petrol importer, it doesn't have the refining capability for its domestic market).

I'm not sure about the diplomatic timetable though.  So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.

[Jaron]

I am shocked. Now as soon as someone gets me a viable plan to deal with this that doesn't cause the Straits to close and the global economy to collapse get back to me.

Bomb Bomb Bomb

Bomb Bomb Iran

[Admiral Yi]

So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.

Why?

[Sheilbh]

So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.

Why?

Obama's basically returned to US policy with Iran from Reagan to Clinton - that is the Americans are willing to meet at a senior level with the Iranians if there'll be good faith talks.  That puts the onus on the Iranians which is, I think, correct and diplomatically important.

I believe that he briefed NATO allies about the second nuclear site a while in advance, then got the British and the French to present it to the Security Council and got the EU-3 to agree to a joint ramping up the pressure about the need for Iran to begin to cooperate.  It was very deftly handled.

Now policy hasn't changed that significantly.  There's very little difference between what the Bush administration's policy was and the Obama administration's.  But I think that while the Bush administration was actually more or less at one with the EU-3 on Iran the Republican foreign policy establishment and certain figures in the administration didn't agree with it.  I think that weakened the US's hand in convincing Europe to go for sanctions because they didn't necessarily feel the US was actually supporting the diplomatic process.  I also think the US's greater involvement with those negotiations has strengthened the hand we have when it comes to Russia - for similar reasons, but also because they're more likely to deal with the US on this subject than they are the EU-3.

So far I think there seems to be more support for sanctions - as I say the White House is talking 'crippling' sanctions, so I imagine it'll target oil.  I believe the Canadians, Brits, Germans and French are now talking about a separate sanctions regime if the UN doesn't support them.  The Russians have, interestingly, said that sanctions are now possibly 'inevitable' and, more importantly, they've put effectively an indefinite hold on shipping uranium for that nuclear plant they're building.  I believe they were meant to deliver six months ago and they've now said there's a problem which will require them to delay that by at least nine months.  Though to be fair they signed on to build that power plant in the early nineties so this might not be deliberate policy, it could well be a series of fuck-ups.

All in all I feel the West's working with more purpose and more coherently, I think the Iranians are more rattled - both internally and because their 'friends' (like Russia) aren't seeming so helpful.  Of course all of this isn't down to Obama.  I think the part his public diplomacy played in the election protests, for example, was minimal at best but I think the diplomatic work in Europe and Russia's been very impressive so far.  There's more to do, of course, but so far I'm encouraged.

[Sheilbh]

On the same story and perhaps more importantly the IAEA's formally expressed their concerns:

Iran told to halt work on nuclear plant by UN watchdog

International Atomic Energy Agency vote could form the basis for a future binding resolution by the UN security council


    * Ian Black, Middle East editor
    * guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 November 2009 12.45 GMT

Iran faced rare international unity today when the governing board of the UN nuclear watchdog issued a formal demand that it immediately halt work on a secret uranium enrichment plant at the centre of concerns that the country is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Russia and China lined up with the US, Britain, France and Germany to censure Iran in a vote by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), passing the first resolution against Iran in nearly four years by a 25-3 margin.

The IAEA vote could form the basis for a future binding resolution by the UN security council, which in turn could be used to impose sanctions.

Gordon Brown was quick to warn of punitive measures: "I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote from the world community," he said in Trinidad and Tobago where he is attending a Commonwealth summit.

The Foreign Office called the resolution "the strongest possible signal to Iran that its actions and intentions remain a matter of grave international concern".

But it also left the door open for compliance. "We are waiting for Iran to respond meaningfully," a Foreign Office statement said. "But if it is clear that Iran has chosen not to do so, we will have no alternative but to consider further pressure on Iran in line with the dual-track policy we have been pursuing."

The six countries leading the negotiations made clear a week ago that they were unhappy with Iran's foot-dragging after talks in Geneva and Vienna and its apparent rejection of a deal to transfer 75% of its low-enriched uranium abroad to be used by a Tehran reactor that makes isotopes for cancer treatments. They urged Iran "to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement ... and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations".

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, said after today's vote: "Adoption of this resolution is not only unhelpful in improving the current situation but will jeopardise the conducive environment vitally needed for success in the process of Geneva and Vienna negotiations expected to lead to a common understanding."

Iran's standard response is to warn that it will reduce co-operation if put under pressure, but western diplomats believe it will not want to alienate its own supporters by acting illegally. Cuba, Malaysia and Venezuela opposed the IAEA resolution while Brazil, Egypt, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey and Afghanistan abstained.

President Barack Obama has warned there could be a package of sanctions against Iran within weeks, but the timing is crucial, not least because of differences on the security council and the key question of how effective any punitive measures would be.

Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Iran, said: "If the present set of talks are even faintly alive I don't think it is in the interests of the six to say 'let's move to sanctions now'. But it's inevitable that sanctions discussions will get more real."

Gloom about the apparent impasse deepened yesterday with a statement by Mohamed ElBaradei, the outgoing director-general of the IAEA, expressing dismay over Iran's failure, until September, to notify the IAEA of the site near Qom that it had been secretly building for two years, and its failure to address allegations about a suspected nuclear weapons programme.

"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said. "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."

[Admiral Yi]

Well Shelf, your assessment sounds very optimistic to me, to say the least.  Seems we've heard this language about "this time we really mean it" plenty of times before.  And on the con side we have Obama's cynical/realpolitik avoidance of verbal support for the election protesters.

[Faeelin]

Well Shelf, your assessment sounds very optimistic to me, to say the least.  Seems we've heard this language about "this time we really mean it" plenty of times before.  And on the con side we have Obama's cynical/realpolitik avoidance of verbal support for the election protesters.

Do you think Obama should have voiced more support for them?

[Admiral Yi]

Do you think Obama should have voiced more support for them?

If there had been a high likelihood that throwing them under the bus would have led to Iran ending it's nuke program I would probably have been in favor.  I don't think that's the case.  I think Obama gave away something for nothing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Do you think Obama should have voiced more support for them?

If there had been a high likelihood that throwing them under the bus would have led to Iran ending it's nuke program I would probably have been in favor.  I don't think that's the case.  I think Obama gave away something for nothing.

You're kidding right?

The last thing the Iranian opposition wanted was for a US President to trumpet his support publicly. 

[dps]

So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.

Why?

Obama's basically returned to US policy with Iran from Reagan to Clinton - that is the Americans are willing to meet at a senior level with the Iranians if there'll be good faith talks.  That puts the onus on the Iranians which is, I think, correct and diplomatically important.

Well, I agree that it puts the onus on the Iranians, but since I don't think they give a shit about that, I don't see the point.

Gotta agree with Minsky that the Iranian opposition certainly didn't want public support for the U.S. government.

[Admiral Yi]

You're kidding right?

The last thing the Iranian opposition wanted was for a US President to trumpet his support publicly.

Are you concluding this based on statements by the opposition or through inference?  Either way, if that was part of the calculation that didn't pan out too well either.