Iran’s Not in Violation of Anything

[Orwellian_Ghost]

SCOTT RITTER: Well, again, Iran is bound by its agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. These agreements are between Iran and the IAEA. You cannot compare Iran’s arrangement with the IAEA with any other nation, so it’s an absurd argument to begin with.

Second of all, Iran’s agreements with the IAEA are—you know, the current agreements go back to 2003 period, where Iran, in exchange for Europe and the United States recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear aspirations—that means to enrich uranium for peaceful energy uses—Iran would voluntarily agree to what’s called the additional protocol of inspections, as well as what’s known as the Subsidiary Agreement. The Subsidiary Agreement requires Iran to declare any facility at the time that it intends to produce it, create it, to build it, as opposed to the old agreement, which said Iran must declare this facility 180 days prior to the insertion of nuclear material. Iran said, “We will abide by this additional protocol of inspections and the Subsidiary Agreement on a voluntary basis, until which time the Parliament of Iran ratifies these new agreements.” These have never been ratified, so this was a voluntary submission on the part of Iran.

In 2007, Iran withdrew from this voluntary arrangement, citing the noncompliance of its partners—Europe, the United States—in recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s not in violation of anything. Iran is in compliance, and the IAEA has stated this. The IAEA has said that the fact that Iran was in compliance with the old Code 3.1, the Subsidiary Agreement, the old Safeguards Agreements, means that you can’t find them to be in noncompliance with this new set of arrangements.

The key here isn’t the technicality of the legal documents; it’s about the diversion of nuclear material. And the IAEA has a 100 percent accounting for the totality of Iran’s nuclear material. So, even if Iran produces this new facility, which, by the way, is not in operation and won’t be in operation for over a year, no nuclear material has been diverted, there still is a full material balance, and the IAEA is in complete control of the situation. Iran is not in violation.

...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/29/fmr_un_weapons_inspector_scott_ritter

[Orwellian_Ghost]

1. Certainly

a negative UNRECCER type of discussant could argue what Iran is in violation of eh?

[BlooInBloo]

2. I wouldn't object strongly if they passed a law saying something like...

"no war shall be started until all of Greenwald's objections have been answered to his satisfaction."

I kid, of course, but you get the idea. :P

[JackRiddler]

3. Shhh! Don't disturb the hysteria!

[ShortnFiery]

6. That was yesterday, today people are worked up in the biggest lather over Polansky.

Go Figure. :eyes: :P

[JackRiddler]

33. Yes, but that's DU. Unfortunately, I meant the United States.

[spanone]

4. ritter has been proven correct time after time.

[truedelphi]

46. You'd think that the slogan "Weapons of Mass Destruction!"

Could only work once.

But of course, this is America, and both parties are entitled to start stupid wars that waste other people's blood and money.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Thanks for the valuable site reference.

:thumbsup:

[Boojatta]

7. "Anything" covers a lot of territory in the geography of potential wrongdoing.

[EFerrari]

8. K&R

[Overseas]

9. K&R.

That's what I was wondering as I viewed the grandstanding all around-- have they violated any laws they've signed on to?

I hope these televised gotcha disclosures of their site have prevented a more violent exposure of their nuclear program.

[gratuitous]

10. But how are you going to gin up the hysteria if you keep getting bogged down in facts?

Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty well played out. Nobody wants to talk about them anymore, except maybe a few military families and of course the dirty fucking hippies, who always delight when their betters make the teensiest miscalculation. What we need is a new enemy and a new war. Now, Iran has some liabilities, no doubt. It's in the same part of the world as Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's easy to get confused among all those Asian countries. But Ambrose Bierce was cynically right when he said that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography.

Anyway, beggars can't be choosers, and if Iran is the best we can do for now, well, the war machine needs to keep huffing and chuffing along. You start dragging facts into the mix, though, and you might as well not have a war at all! How are people going to be panicked if Iran is no more of a threat than a kid sitting on the living room floor with a pop gun? They could have a bomb in 10 years or so! And they have rockets that can hit . . . well, maybe a couple of miles beyond their own borders. But it's still outside their own country! Smoking guns! Mushroom clouds! PH34R! Aaaaahhh!!1!!1!eleven!

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. well said.

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. well said.

[grantcart]

11. The IAEA has no provision for "voluntary withdrawal"

Ritter is a good inspector but Iran's practices have been completely deceptive.


Iran is not in compliance and the IAEA does not state this.


The director of the IAEA has outlined the areas that Iran is not cooperating in and wants more information:


From his September 7th report to the board:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2009/ebsp2009n009.html#iran

In my view, there are three key areas relevant to Iran´s nuclear programme that need to be addressed.

First, and specifically, Iran needs to respond fully to all the questions raised by the Agency in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to its nuclear programme. To this end, it is essential that Iran substantively re-engage with the Agency to clarify and bring to closure all outstanding issues, including the most difficult and important questions regarding the authenticity of information relating to the alleged weaponization studies, by granting the Agency access to persons, information and locations.

I also call on those who provided the information to enable the Agency to share with Iran as much information as possible to assist the Agency in moving forward with the verification process.

Second, and more generally, Iran needs to implement the Additional Protocol. Without the Protocol, the Agency will not be able to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear activities in Iran, especially given Iran´s past record of failing to declare material and activities.

Third, Iran´s future intentions concerning its nuclear programme need to be clarified to respond to the concerns of the international community. This is essentially a question of confidence-building between Iran and the international community through comprehensive dialogue and other measures. I call on all parties to begin this dialogue as soon as possible and urge Iran to respond positively to the recent US initiative in this regard.

[ShortnFiery]

12. The "Illegitimate Leader" that our CIA installed wanted Nuclear Power. No complaints about him

back in the 1970s from the USA?

[LooseWilly]

13. "this new facility, which, by the way, is not in operation and won’t be in operation for over a year

It's panicking time...

I guess the Powers that Be are worried that the new facility might be too difficult for Israel to bomb?...

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. They are in violation of human rights abuses

They are in violation of sending kids across mine fields in the 1980s to clear the fields for the soldiers.

They are in violation of murdering hundreds of protesters to their stolen election.

Speaking of the which, they are in violation of stealing an election.

They are in violation of threatening another sovereign nation with extinction.

The people of Iran deserve to be free, not dead. If they keep heading down this path, a LOT of these wonderful people are going to die. Potentially from radiation.

[John Schroeder]

16. "they are in violation of stealing an election"

That's your opinion. The Iranian people have a different opinion, and overwhelmingly so.



http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb

"Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran's legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence. Just 13 percent say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the results. In general, eight in 10 (81%) say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected, but only half that number (40%) say they are very satisfied.

Among the 87 percent of respondents who say they voted in the June presidential election, 55 percent say they voted for Ahmadinejad. Only 14 percent say they voted for Mir Hossein Mousavi, the leading opposition candidate, and 26 percent refused to answer. Asked how they would vote if the election were held again, overall 49 percent say they would vote for Ahmadinejad, 8 percent for Mousavi, 13 percent say they would not vote, and 26 percent would not answer.

"The extremely high number of people refusing to answer questions about their voting preference--something not found in response to any other questions--suggests that people have some discomfort with this topic," says WPO's Kull. "Thus these findings on voting preference are not a solid basis for estimating the actual vote."

Eight in 10 say Ahmadinejad is honest but slightly less than half - 48 percent -- say he is very honest. Asked about the institutions that make up the government of the Islamic republic, large majorities express at least some confidence in major institutions. The president is viewed most favorably, with 84 percent of respondents expressing a lot (64%) of or some (20%) confidence."

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Yeah, and Ahmadi Nejad won 98% of Mousavi's home town.

Believe what you want. I have friends in Tehran and Qom. I will go with them, thanks.

[Kid Dynamite]

23. And of course the United States, the most pristine and unsullied nation

on the planet when it comes to human rights abuses, should be the one to decide the matter, determine effective punishment (such as sanctions that will double as both human rights violations and a declaration of war) AND mete out all punishment

I like the way you think, Ruby the Liberal

[Ruby the Liberal]

24. Did I say that?

No, I did not.

Please do not put me in the position of declaring the past administration of being guiltless. I hold their stolen government as guilty as our stolen government.

[Kid Dynamite]

25. This administration is different how?

They are still pushing for sanctions that are going to result in immiseration and the death of a large number of people, I think.

[Ruby the Liberal]

26. Sanctions are not bombing brown people.

[Kid Dynamite]

28. Yeah because Oil For Food wasn't an unmitigated catastrophe

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. Again, don't put words in my mouth.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. A lot of these wonderful people are going to die, potentially from

radiation from AMERICAN NUKES via ISRAEL. And Iran has not waged an agressive war since, what, the 1700s?

Why so eager to pick a fight with them?

[Hydra]

15. I'm sick of all the noise about Iran

We talk about how nuclear power is the wave of the future(Gods, I hope not!), yet when someone does go for it, we talk about how they're going to make a bomb.

Newsflash: N Korea has them- try fixing that first!

[Buck Feck]

30. Yeah, but.....

...AIPAC has no problem with them!

[JohnyCanuck]

17. Iran truthful, in treaty compliance; US/Israel lying, in treaty violation

SNIP

Under the Eisenhower administration, the US cooperated with the Shah’s government for the development of Iranian nuclear energy through the “Atoms for Peace” program.<6> President Ford agreed to US full cooperation to help Iran build about two dozen nuclear energy plants. When the Iranian people overthrew the Shah’s government in 1979, the US stopped cooperating. The US backed Iraq in their invasion of Iran in 1980 and throughout the war until 1988, seeking a more US-friendly Iranian government. The US provided Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons to use against Iran that the W. Bush administration later used as justification for invading Iraq.<7> Since 1979, the US has worked to prevent Iran having a nuclear energy program, even under the legal provisions of the NPT, and reneged on a multi-billion dollar contract to deliver nuclear fuel to Iran without refunding Iran’s money.<8>

Therefore, all US administrations since Carter in 1979 have committed lies of omission by not disclosing to the public Iran’s treaty-right to nuclear energy under NPT. US political “leadership” obfuscates the issue with rhetoric of Iran’s “nuclear program” to link energy with weapons.<9> Ironically, the US is in additional violation of NPT by developing new nuclear weapons and threatening to use them rather than work for global disarmament as per treaty terms.<10> The US actions are also in violation of the UN Charter in threatening war.<11>

The UK and France are out of NPT compliance by not assisting Iran for nuclear energy development and then accepting the reasonable terms of full monitoring of nuclear refinement that has had a perfect history for safety and compliance for over 40 years. Israel is not signatory to NPT; they ironically choose what they accuse of Iran: a secret nuclear weapons program estimated at 200 warheads. Israel has also been found by the UN’s Human Rights Council to be in numerous violations of War Crimes against Gaza.

The previous three paragraphs are plain vanilla history in conservatively-known content. This means it is encyclopedic and not disputed by government or argued by historians. It should be clear to you that “leadership” from both political parties and mainstream media do not provide the necessary context of history and treaty facts to evaluate the Bush and Obama administrations’ statements threatening war with Iran. Their collective use of the term “nuclear program” is intentionally conflating the two distinct technologies of legal low-grade energy refinement with illegal very high-grade weapons refinement. We could also call it fraud, as it deliberately misinforms.<12>

http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Irans-Nuclear-Program-Iran-in-treaty-compliance-USIsrael-lying-and-out-of-compliance

[malaise]

18. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Why do you hate America - you're supposed to buy the propaganda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Who cares? Iran makes a great bogeyman to keep the MIC profitable.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. Iran's violation seems to be abandoning the dollar for the euro.

[BunkerHill24]

29. Thank you for sharing with us

K&R

[roamer65]

31. I think the Israelis are going to attack Iran...

late this year or early 2010. I think they just may use nuclear tipped bunker busters to do it.

[truedelphi]

47. Why would they do that when we will do it for them? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. You got that backwards - they will do igt for us, then in return we will

keep Iran from hitting back.

[truedelphi]

52. Ah! I think you nailed it. n/t

[Wilms]

34. k&r n/t

[troubledamerican]

35. Ritter is always correct -- which is why he's not invited on TV, not even MSNBC.

[slipslidingaway]

36. knr thanks n/t

[leftstreet]

37. K&R

[Orwellian_Ghost]

38. US Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn't Add Up

US Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn't Add Up

by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - The story line that dominated media coverage of the second Iranian uranium enrichment facility last week was the official assertion that U.S. intelligence had caught Iran trying to conceal a "secret" nuclear facility.

But an analysis of the transcript of that briefing by senior administration officials that was the sole basis for the news stories and other evidence reveals damaging admissions, conflicts with the facts and unanswered questions that undermine its credibility.

Iran's notification to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the second enrichment facility in a letter on Sep. 21 was buried deep in most of the news stories and explained as a response to being detected by U.S. intelligence. In reporting the story in that way, journalists were relying entirely on the testimony of "senior administration officials" who briefed them at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh Friday.

U.S. intelligence had "learned that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was compromised", one of the officials said, according to the White House transcript. The Iranians had informed the IAEA, he asserted, because "they came to believe that the value of the facility as a secret facility was no longer valid..."

...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/30-0

[Stables2010]

39. This is starting to look like bush all over again

[truedelphi]

53. A kinder gentler leader

But definitely the major policies that please the Nazi inner circle are operating now.

I found it interesting that Lou Dobbs said the other day, "When we come back after commercial break, we will discuss Pres. Bush's trip to Denmark."

The people in the inner circle get it, at least on the sub conscious levels.

[bertman]

40. There you go again trying to confuse us with facts.

Now we need to have a debate between Scott Ritter and grantcart.

Recommend.

[blindpig]

41. You better watch out....

The RLP is gonna getcha.

(Reactionary Link Police)

k&r

[JackRiddler]

42. kick

[Echo In Light]

43. Scott Ritter?!

Oh yeah, the former UN weapons inspector who was trashed and thrown under the bus by the Establishment entire for providing accurate, factual (albeit unfavorable) data re WMDs back in the run-up orgy for vested biz intere$ts to descend on the helpless civilian population of Iraq. Yeah, that guy.

Rec! Thanks for posting

[hay rick]

44. Where's Richard Butler?

He was the unScott Ritter- the media's darling and CNN's "ambassador-in-residence" fa christsake. By the time it became obvious he was totally wrong on WMD he had evaporated into thin air...never to be seen or heard from again.

[SpartanDem]

45. The head of the IAEA would seem to disagree

IAEA: Iran broke law by not revealing nuclear facility

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Iran broke international law by not disclosing sooner its recently revealed uranium enrichment site, the head of the United Nation's nuclear watchdog agency said.

But the U.N. does not have credible evidence that Iran has an operational nuclear weapons program, Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

"Iran has been on the wrong side of the law in so far as to inform the agency at an earlier date," ElBaradei told CNN's sister station in India, CNN-IBN. "Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility. They have not done that."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/30/iran.iaea.nuclear/

[anonymous171]

49. I personally don't care if they do build nukes.

I just hope that the nuclear war with Israel ends quickly and both nations are blown from the face of the Earth.

[G_j]

50. K&R