Apparently, internal disagreements between IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei and his "technical staff" has impacted what is supposed to be a neutral and objective report on Iran's nuclear program which is due out by the end of February (See Disagreements could delay Iran nuclear report: diplomats
Agence France Presse Feb 11 2008.)
The reporter claims that anonymous Western diplomats are saying:
"there were disagreements between ElBaradei and his technical staff. ElBaradei is pushing for one thing, while the people who went on a technical visit to Iran during January disagree . . . I've heard that some of his technical staff are not happy ... There's a concern that most of the big issues are going to be declared as resolved when there's still a feeling that they're anything but."
A "feeling" that the big issues are not resolved? Gosh, why let facts get in the way when there are "feelings" that take priority.
Of course, one cannot and must not believe anything that these "anonymous Western diplomats" have to say about Iran and the IAEA because of their quite checkered history of saying things that only suit their own agenda.
But anyway, here are the facts: in the Aug 2007 IAEA-Iran agreement (the "modalities" agreement) the "outstanding issues" that had to be resolved were listed, with specificity, and the report indicated that they would each be tackled in order.
In the following November 2007 IAEA report, 9 of the outstanding issues were in fact resolved. These included Iran's acquisition of the P-1 centrifuge, previous work on the P-2 centrifuge, and experiments with uranium metal. Some other matters -- such as experiments with plutonium, had already been resolved as indicated in this document.
Only 2 issues remained: additional traces of highly-enriched uranium at a university in Tehran (such traces hitherto have been shown by Iran to come from contaminated parts and not from a secret enrichment program) and the "alleged studies" by Iran on a nuclear weapons system -- allegations made by the US, based on a supposedly stolen laptop computer which some dissident had supposedly smuggled out of Iran (and which the US has never made available to the IAEA for verification.)
By all accounts, the IAEA report due in Feb will also clear up the remaining two issues in Iran's favor. ElBaradei has already stated publicly that the IAEA had made "good progress" with Iran on the matter, while continuing to insist that Iran ratify the Additional Protocol (which Iran has been willing o do, once its nuclear rights are recognized.)
Naturally, there was some consternation by the US at the Aug 2007 "modalities" agreement between Iran and the IAEA because it clearly specified that once the outstanding issues were resolved, then the file on Iran would be effectively closed:
These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities ... The Agency agreed to provide Iran with all remaining questions according to the above work plan. This means that after receiving the questions, no other questions are left.
This means that once the remaining issues are resolved (as they seem set to be) then the IAEA's investigation of Iran is effectively over . . . and after more than 2,000 man-hours of investigations, NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM HAS BEEN FOUND IN IRAN.
This quite upsetting if you're a war-mongering pro-Israeli Bush administration neo-con, naturally.
So, some way has to be found to continue incriminating Iran in the fact of the IAEA's report. What to do? First, attack the messenger of course. Smear El-Baradei and the IAEA. Insist that the case is not closed, that there are additional reasons to suspect Iran, even if the IAEA has found nothing. Indeed, insist that even if Iran's past activities were not suspicious, that anything Iran does in the future is inherently suspicious and meant to make nuclear weapons -- again, the evidence be damned.
And that's where the AFP article starts to veer off-course:
Under a so-called "work plan" drawn up by ElBaradei and Tehran, Iran initially had until the end of last year to resolve all outstanding issues."
Well, no. That's not accurate. The "so-called" modalities agreement does not specify any such deadline of "until the end of the year" to resolve all outstanding issues. The document is only 5 pages, and anyone can read it for themselves here....did you see any reference to a deadline "by the end of the year" in there? Neither did I.
And yet the media try to spin the IAEA as being overly-soft on Iran for supposedly giving Iran a 4-week extension on a deadline that didn't exist in the first place:
That deadline passed. But then, following a trip to Tehran in mid-January, ElBaradei gave Iran another four weeks. The repeated extension to the deadline has led many Western countries to accuse Tehran of deliberately stringing the process out.Some observers have argued that in his pursuit of a diplomatic solution, ElBaradei is not being tough
enough, thereby playing into Iran's hands.
"Some observers"....hmmm.... that wouldn't be the war-mongering neo-cons and their Israeli allies, would it?
Israel dismissed a report issued by the UN nuclear watchdog agency on Thursday as "unacceptable," claiming it was further proof that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei was pro-Iranian. The long-awaited IAEA report released on Thursday found Iran to be generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history..."This report is unacceptable," Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman told The Jerusalem Post. "This is further proof of ElBaradei's one-sided and pro-Iranian position." Last week, Lieberman said that ElBaradei was "part of the problem, not part of the solution."
LOL!
Comments