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

[Sheilbh]

Sorta like how the PRC supported the latest UN sanctions against North Korea, then turned around sent Hu Jintao to Pyongyang, promising fresh new shipments of supplies and resources which are now being delivered?

Don't underestimate Russia and China's love of supporting regimes like Iran's.

I agree.  Though I would note that it's not quite like North Korea-China.  Not least because neither Russian nor China are an exasperated sugar daddy to the Iranians, Iran's as bit more independent.  But also China suffers very real consequences the more North Korea fucks up. 

As I say it's uncertain and the real answer is that critics and fans of Obama's Iran diplomacy both don't know.  Now I think there's an inveterate bias on Languish against diplomacy.  Many people are war gamers and I can't think of any situation to which the Languish consensus thought the answer was anything other than escalation.

All we can do is judge our impressions of American overtures so far.  I think in terms of diplomacy it's been good.  I think it's convincing to the rest of the world.  As I say I don't think policy's changed significantly from the Bush administration but the mood music makes it seem like negotiations won't have failed through a lack of American involvement/care/belief.  I think that's good, I would rather the onus be on the Iranians to come to the table and on them for the failure of negotiations than not.

[jimmy olsen]

And the dog barks.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112369&sectionid=351020101

Iran says IAEA will face consequences of decision
Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:15:27 GMT

The UN nuclear watchdog will be the first to face the consequences of a newly-adopted resolution condemning Iran for its enrichment program, says a senior Iranian cleric.

On Friday, the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a German-sponsored resolution that calls on Iran to stop uranium enrichment and immediately freeze the construction of its newly revealed Fordo nuclear facility outside Tehran.

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami responded to the move on Saturday, asserting that Iran will never be "forced", or for that matter, "bribed" to relinquish its legal nuclear rights.

"Rather than hurting Iran, the new resolution will impair the UN nuclear watchdog and Security Council," he said in a ceremony marking the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha (the Feast of the Sacrifice).

Khatami said Western countries are obligated "under law" to provide Tehran with the fuel it needs for the Tehran research reactor.

"If they fail to do so, Iran is well able to produce its own enriched uranium in order to keep the Tehran research reactor up and running," he said.

Some Western powers, spearheaded by the US, have been pressuring Iran to accept an inflexible nuclear draft deal which wants Iran's Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) to be shipped out of the country for further enrichment and return to Iran to be used in Tehran research reactor.

Iranian officials rejected the UN proposal, first floated by the administration of US President Barack Obama, saying there are no guarantees that the country would in fact receive the fuel it requires.

Tehran says it is ready to accept the nuclear swap if it takes place within its own borders.

The Tehran Research Reactor produces radioisotopes used in cancer treatment by over 200 hospitals in Iran.

"Over the past thirty years, Iranians have shown to the world that they will never give up their rights, especially those related to the country's nuclear program," said Khatami.

While the resolution received the immediate backing of Germany, Britain, Israel and the US, it was seen in Iran as a "hasty and undue" move with "far-reaching implications".

Iran's envoy to the UN nuclear watchdog, Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh, warned on Friday that the decision will only introduce tension to the "spirit of cooperation."

"We expect the agency to play its essential role and facilitate technical cooperation ... this environment of the agency should be depoliticized for we have to make sure that the agency will only focus on technical matters," he said.

According to Soltaniyeh, if Western powers think that they will stop Iran's enrichment program by passing one resolution after another, "they are seriously wrong".

"In fact, over 200 hospitals whose patients are struggling with cancer are in need of radioisotopes. If they continue not to cooperate and supply the fuel, then the [Tehran] government has to look for other options," he said in an exclusive interview with Press TV.

Soltaniyeh reiterated that despite Iran's disappointment over the resolution, it is still "determined" to continue cooperation with the IAEA and expects the West to lean towards cooperation rather than confrontation.

SBB/DT

[Neil]

Why is the IAEA even bothering?

[The Minsky Moment]

I agree that it is easy to speculate, but it is hard to support that particular speculation, even with inferential proof.

I can call your unstated assertion bad names too, but where does that get us?

The difference is that I provided facts that support mine.

On the Great Satan side of the debate you have the unproven (to my mind) assumption that the people (as opposed to the state) of Iran buy into it, and think that being on the same side as the US automatically delegitimizes a cause.

I think it is reasonable to assume that people who are partisans and supporters for a particular leaders are likely to share many of the beliefs and positions of that leader.  And I have no reason to believe that either Mousavi or Karroubi are lying when they express their views concerning the US, which are of long and established vintage.

[dps]

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.

It's aimed at the rest of the world, not the Iranians.

So it's just supposed to give everybody else a warm fuzzy feeling, not actually do anything to keep the Iranians from getting nukes.

[Admiral Yi]

The US was exactly right to not talk about supporting the protestors but rather to phrase it in terms of condemning violence against them.  Making a statement of support, or whatever, would have made Americans feel warm and fuzzy and good.  I think the insistence I heard on the need to show support for the protestors was a ridiculous desire for the political equivalent of auto-erotica. 

And I think a clear expression of support for the principle of rule of law and open and fair elections is a bit more laudable than masturbation.  As is expression of the disconnect between Iranian democracy in theory and Iranian democracy in practice.

I think you underestimate the power of nationalism and the unpopularity of foreign powers being perceived as meddling.  It would have also played into the hands of the regime, especially given that their propaganda has said that these protests were largely concocted by the Americans (the protestors countered that Ahmedinejad's regime was basically a Russian puppet).  State TV played footage on loop suggesting that Bush, McCain, Obama and Soros were behind it all.

And?  Do we have reason to believe that Iranians bought into this?

If you want to support movements like that then quietly funnel money their way.  Condemn existing regimes.  But I think it's mostly a mistake to get too close to protest/revolutionary movements because they'll look like puppets and will be easier to dismiss.  That could have changed now that Obama's in office - I imagine Bush saying 'we support your struggle' was hemlock to most movements - but I don't think it's changed that much.

As I mentioned in a response to Fate in this thread, there is a long list of democratic movements which we have supported which seem to suffered not at all. 

Is it?  I thought it was mostly factual.

I don't know what'll happen.  I think the Russians have other interests in the region and we don't know how they'll behave.  My sense is that the EU-3 have had their hand strengthened in negotiations and are now far more willing to consider sanctions.  But this is the problem with asking for an assessment of diplomacy.  The real answer is we don't know.  I've no idea what the Quai d'Orsay or the Kremlin are thinking and if it's had an effect.

So all I can do is, from what I know about what the US has done, judge how well I think they've played it.  So far I think it's been very impressive.

And I think Iran hasn't budged an inch.

Given that a great deal of Swedes believe this, why would the people of a state with constant anti-American propaganda, which has suffered nearly thirty years of American backed tyranny and whose worst enemy was backed by the Americans, why would they not dislike the US?  I mean the leadership of the revolt movement was certainly not made up of pro-Americans.

I don't know what the belief system of the Swedes can tell us about the rest of the world.

I think you vastly overestimate the ability of state propaganda, particularly in a country with porous borders, an educated population, a large diaspora with family contacts and frequent visits, to control attitudes.  Imagine you are an Iranian protestor and you see a news report that the CIA is directing the movement.  Is your inclination to think you're being controlled by the CIA, or to think that the news is bunk?

As to 30 years of tyranny, I know the clerical establishment and the Communist party did not do well, whereas the urban middle class did very well under the Shah.  As to the great majority of the population outside those circles, I haven't read anything directly on the issue but I would tend to believe they were tyrannized very lightly if at all.

As to the opposition leaderships attitudes towards the US, I don't have much to go on.  Yes I know that whatshisname is an Old Guard member of the revolutionary government; I also know he has made an effort to access the international media, like his English language blog.  And in all the interviews since the election I haven't seen anything negative about the US.

[Sheilbh]

So it's just supposed to give everybody else a warm fuzzy feeling, not actually do anything to keep the Iranians from getting nukes.

No.  If the US is being open and saying they'll talk as soon as the Iranians are read (as was the policy under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton) it makes the failure of dialogue the Iranians fault.  That makes the rest of the world basically able to say that the US tried, at least, and more likely to support further action because the diplomatic one was exhausted and the Iranians weren't willing even to meet.

And I think a clear expression of support for the principle of rule of law and open and fair elections is a bit more laudable than masturbation.  As is expression of the disconnect between Iranian democracy in theory and Iranian democracy in practice.

Yeah but it's more for your benefit than anyone else's.

And?  Do we have reason to believe that Iranians bought into this?

I think they're in a generally anti-American area, with a generally anti-American government and have solid reasons from their history for resenting the Americans as much as they do the Brits and the Russians.  Do I think they buy into state propaganda?  Not entirely.  But I do think US support would hugely damage support for the movement among people like Tehran cabby and other figures.

And I think Iran hasn't budged an inch.

I never said they have

I think you vastly overestimate the ability of state propaganda, particularly in a country with porous borders, an educated population, a large diaspora with family contacts and frequent visits, to control attitudes.

Not just propaganda.  Culture, religion, history, class, nationalism.  I think there's a whole gamut of, for the most part, fair reasons why Iranians would be at least suspicious of America getting involved.

As to the opposition leaderships attitudes towards the US, I don't have much to go on.

Actually you've got nothing to go on.  The leadership is overwhelmingly run by old radicals from the 1980s Islamic left.  Khameini and Rafsanjani were moderates compared to Mousavi. 

Now generally the Islamic Left's become more liberal in certain attitudes so you can guess that such is likely from him.  But I mean that's the only actual reason you could have for guessing that he's less anti-American and anti-Israeli than he was 20 years ago when he was last in office.

Who are you talking about with the blog and the interview?  Mousavi had an all Persian website - not a blog - that's since been closed down and I'm almost certain he's not been in any interviews.

As I mentioned in a response to Fate in this thread, there is a long list of democratic movements which we have supported which seem to suffered not at all.

I'd dispute apartheid given that Desmond Tutu called US policy on South Africa during the 80s 'evil, immoral and unchristian'.  If Zimbabwe and Burma are the best to hope for then I'd hope you stay far away from the Iranians.

As to the colour ones I think I've a slightly different memory.  My memory of them was that the US helped the opposition financially as did some wealthy Americans (for example George Soros's pro-democracy charity), but that during the revolutions the US and western line was that elections must be free and fair, the government must treat the protesters with respect.  That's exactly the line I've said should be taken in Iran.

I think the Cedar revolution was different for obvious reasons.

[Admiral Yi]

but that during the revolutions the US and western line was that elections must be free and fair, the government must treat the protesters with respect.  That's exactly the line I've said should be taken in Iran.

That's exactly the line *I* said we should have taken with Iran.

[Sheilbh]

That's exactly the line *I* said we should have taken with Iran.

No you didn't.  You wanted 'verbal support' of the election protesters which I think would be a mistake.

Keep focused on the government: condemn violence, say that all elections should be free and fair and that you're concerned with reports of irregularities.  That's what the White House and the EU did, I think they were right, you think they were wrong.

[Admiral Yi]

No you didn't.  You wanted 'verbal support' of the election protesters which I think would be a mistake.

Keep focused on the government: condemn violence, say that all elections should be free and fair and that you're concerned with reports of irregularities.  That's what the White House and the EU did, I think they were right, you think they were wrong.

Verbal support of protestors who were protesting what the believed to be fraudulent elections.  What other purpose would verbal support serve?  Let them know we think they're sexy and we really like Aizeris?

Maybe I missed the White House statement condemning violence and expressing concern over irregularities.  Seriously, maybe I missed it.

[Sheilbh]

Verbal support of protestors who were protesting what the believed to be fraudulent elections.  What other purpose would verbal support serve?  Let them know we think they're sexy and we really like Aizeris?

But I think verbal support of the protesters suggests some statement about how we stand with them, or their struggle is ours.  The sort of thing that would make the US the Mick Jagger of revolutionary states.  I think that sort of thing is largely for domestic consumption, makes Americans feel good about themselves while opening up the protesters to allegations of them being American puppets.  I think it's patronising to a very proud people.

That's distinct from what I'd want which is condemnation of government violence, a general statement supporting the right to protest and the hope that the Iranian government will live up to the promise of their constrained democracy

Maybe I missed the White House statement condemning violence and expressing concern over irregularities.  Seriously, maybe I missed it.

I think you did.  The US to begin with expressed general sentiments:

QUESTION: Death toll in Iranian demonstrations reached to seven people confirmed. Is the United States still watching and monitoring as it unfolds for more strong – stronger stand on that?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, the President about an hour ago addressed the issue of the Iranian elections. I'll repeat what he said, that it's for the Iranian people to decide about their future. This is not about us. This is about Iran. Having said that, of course, I think it's very – or we think as a government that it's very important that the universal right of people to express themselves peacefully, that this right has to be respected. And of course, we condemn any acts of violence that led to the deaths of these demonstrators.

I think that what we're seeing is very troubling. And I reiterate our call to have the rights of the Iranian people to express themselves be respected and have their voices be heard.

QUESTION: What about the recount that is partial there? They agreed that they're going to go for a partial recount by a body that the head of the country Guardian Council actually supported the Ahmadinejad. So what is the United States' stand on that?

MR. KELLY: Well, what we stand for and what our allies have said as well in public is that we want – we want the will of the Iranian people to be respected, that they be responsible for their own future. And we call on the Iranian authorities to be as transparent as possible and to – and that we express our hope that whatever the results are that they express the genuine will and desires of the Iranian people.

Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: The United States is being a little bit less outspoken than some of the other Western countries on Iran. Is there a fear here that if you say what's really on your mind it will be used against American interests in Iran?

MR. KELLY: I think what we're really – and again, the President addressed this just a few minutes ago. Of course, we have seen Iran characterize us as the great Satan. We have seen Iran often publicly use us as kind of a lever. And I think what we're trying to avoid is we're trying to avoid any kind of appearance of this being about the U.S.. We don't want to appear as meddling in this whole process. Again, this is not about us. This is an important moment for the Iranian people, and this is about their future. It's not about us.

That was on June 16th, when the crackdown was just beginning.  It was the first time that either the State Department commented on the elections or the journalists asked about it.  That strikes me as mind-boggling, looking at the White House it seems incredible to me that there were more questions on the 17th, when the crackdown really started, about same sex benefits in the Federal government (3-4 by my count) than about Iran (1).  I think it strikes the right note.

The statements got harsher as the government repressed the protests. 

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

Interesting use of Blair's invention the 'international community'

[CountDeMoney]

 
Looks like they want to make enriched uranium their 4th largest export.  After oil, terrorism and Iranians actually worth a shit, of course.

I can't wait to continue seeing Euro "soft power" at work right up until the point the Israelis bomb them.  The Iranians, that is.  Not the Europeans.  Unfortunately.

Iran approves plans for 10 new uranium enrichment plants in defiance of UN censure

ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
3:53 PM EST, November 29, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran approved plans Sunday to build 10 industrial scale uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion of the program in defiance of U.N. demands it halt enrichment and a move that is likely to significantly heighten tensions with the West.

The decision comes only days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency censured Iran over its program and demanded it halt the construction of a newly revealed enrichment facility. The West has signaled it is running out of patience with Iran's continuing enrichment and its balking at a U.N. deal aimed at ensuring Tehran cannot build a nuclear weapon in the near-term future. The U.S. and its allies have hinted at new U.N. sanctions if Iran does not respond.

The White House said the move "would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself."

"Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband described Iran's move as a provocation.

"This epitomizes the fundamental problem that we face with Iran," he said. "We have stated over and again that we recognize Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program, but they must restore international confidence in their intentions. Instead of engaging with us Iran chooses to provoke and dissemble."

On Friday, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency issued a strong rebuke of Iran over enrichment, infuriating Tehran. Parliament speaker Ali Larijani threatened on Sunday to reduce cooperation with the IAEA.

"Should the West continue to pressure us, the legislature can reconsider the level of Iran's cooperation with the IAEA," Larijani told parliament in a speech carried live on state radio.

Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also Iran's nuclear chief, said Sunday's decision was "a firm message" in response to the IAEA. He told state TV that the agency's censure was a challenge aimed at "measuring the resistance of the Iranian nation."

Any new enrichment plants would take years to build and stock with centrifuges. But the ambitious plans were a bold show by Iran that it is willing to risk further sanctions and won't back down amid a deadlock in negotiation attempts.

Iran currently has one operating enrichment facility, at the central town of Natanz, which has churned out around 1,500 kilograms (3,300 pounds) of low-enriched uranium over the past years — enough to build a nuclear weapon if Iran enriches it to a higher level. Iran says it has no intention of doing so, insisting its nuclear program aims only to generate electricity.

The revelation of a second, previously unannounced facility, under construction for years at Fordo near the holy of Qom, raised accusations from the United States and its allies that Iran was trying expand enrichment in secret out of inspectors' sight. Iran denied the claim.

On Sunday, a Cabinet meeting headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to begin building five uranium enrichment plants at sites that have already been studied and propose five other locations for future construction within two months, the state news agency IRNA reported. All would be at the same scale as Natanz.

The new sites are to be built inside mountains to protect them from possible attacks, said Salehi, Iran's nuclear chief. They will also use a new generation of more efficient and more productive centrifuges that Iran has been working to construct, he and Ahmadinejad said.

In Vienna, spokeswoman Gillian Tudor said the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have no comment on Tehran's announcement.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for "a concentration of sanctions and pressure on the Iranian regime, which is vulnerable economically" to rein in its nuclear ambitions. Israel has not ruled out military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites if its program is not stopped.

The IAEA censure against Iran on Friday was seen as a show of international unity behind demands that Tehran rein in its nuclear program — though there does not yet appear to be consensus on imposing sanctions.

The IAEA resolution criticized Iran for secretly building the Fordo site and defying the U.N. Security Council call for a suspension of enrichment.

It noted that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei cannot confirm that Tehran's nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful uses, and expressed "serious concern" that Iran's stonewalling of an agency probe means "the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program" cannot be excluded.

The U.N. seeks to stop Iran's enrichment, because the process can be used to produce either fuel for a reactor or a warhead. In the process, uranium gas is spun in centrifuges to be purified — to a low degree for fuel, to a higher level for a bomb. Iran denies U.S. claims that it secretly aims to produce a nuclear weapon.

The United States and the top powers at the U.N. have been focused on winning Iran's acceptance of a deal under which it would ship abroad most of its low-enriched uranium stocks to be processed into fuel rods for a research reactor in Tehran. The move would leave Iran — at least temporarily — without enough uranium to produce a bomb.

But Iran has balked, presenting a counter-proposal with various changes. The West has demanded it accept the proposal as is.

In the wake of the IAEA rebuke, Iran has sought to signal that it can lash back if pushed. On Saturday, one hard-line lawmaker warned that parliament might withdraw the country from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and stop all U.N. inspections — a move that would sharply escalate the standoff with the West and cut off the U.N.'s only eyes on Iran's nuclear program.

But parliament took a lesser step on Sunday: 226 of the 290 lawmakers signed a letter urging the government to prepare a plan to reduce Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA in response to its resolution.

Iran touted the expansion of enrichment as necessary for its plans to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through multiple nuclear power plants in the next 20 years.

Ahmadinejad said 500,000 centrifuges will be needed in the new plants to produce between 250 to 300 tons of fuel annually, IRNA reported. About 8,600 centrifuges have been set up in Natanz, but only about 4,000 are actively enriching uranium, according to the IAEA. The facility will eventually house 54,000 centrifuges. The Fordo site is smaller, built for nearly 3,000 centrifuges.