The West’s Threat to Iran and the IAEA

The West’s Threat to Iran and the IAEA

No matter which way you turn now days you continue to see the constant barrage of intimidation and big boy tactics from the well developed countries especially the G3.5 who held their notorious press conference in Pittsburgh when Obama, Brown and Sarkosy made very strong threats towards Iran...

Obama was the first to go on the attack when he said: “Iran’s decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the centre of the non-proliferation regime. These rules are clear: All nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; those nations with nuclear weapons must move towards disarmament; those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them. That compact has largely held for decades, keeping the world far safer and more secure. And that compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.

Iran’s response to claims that it was carrying out illegal activities were denied by the President who said that his government had not violated International Atomic Energy Agency rules after disclosing the existence of a new nuclear-enrichment facility to the UN watchdog. President Ahmadinejad said his country had in fact informed the IAEA a full year in advance of the deadline set by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He went on to say: "If you want to build the building, you can do that. If you want to lay the pipes, you can do that. Six months before you start processing itself ... then you need to inform the IAEA so it is prepared to begin its inspection programme," "Now is this the right thing or the wrong thing to do?" he asked. "It is not a secret facility. If it was, why did we inform the IAEA a year ahead of time?" He also said that he does not have to report to Washington.

What became clear is that although the “Three musketeers” had indicated that nations with nuclear weapons must move towards disarmament and those that do not have such weapons must forsake them. Obama said that in carrying out these actions it would keep the world far safer and more secure. What all three fail to address is the issue of their own secrecy and that of Israel.

Their theme in general indicates to the general public that they will endeavour to stop the production of nuclear weapons and destroy existing stocks. I can assure you that this is far from the truth. Yes, they will abandon the larger intercontinental ballistic missiles (the so called deterrents) but will under the disguise of conventional weapons produce “Mini Nukes” or weapons that contain uranium components. There is a vast array of weapons that fit into this category namely Cruise, Harpoon, Maverick, Hellfire and many other missiles. One could also add to these weapons the GBU range of Bunker Busters, JADAM bombs and a new range of 4th Generation Bombs. Futuristically speaking the proposed weapons in the near future are beyond imagination such as the “Mother of all Bombs” “which they plan to use in Afghanistan in 2010). On the horizon will be Hyper Speed Missiles and other technologies too horrific to even talk about.

So when Obama made the following statement it was very clear that there are two rules that apply here. We the West can do exactly what we want but you the developing or third world countries must toe the line. He quoted: “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow -- endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.” “We are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that treaties will be enforced.” “To put it simply: Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions.”

As you can see from his last comment on UN Security Council Resolutions it is obvious that again double standards apply, especially in regard to Israel who has failed to comply with hundreds of UN Resolutions passed against it. “Nice one Mr President – that’s what I call change.” The US has continuously taken the lead in verbally attacking Iran with Clinton at the forefront but European leaders must also be added to the list of aggressors when Britain and France jumped onto the band wagon:
"The deception by the Iranian government and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, "will shock and anger the entire international community." He was joined in his newfound outrage by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who called for full disclosure by Iran and, short of that, a tougher sanctions regime. "Everything must be put on the table now," Sarkozy said. The West, said Brown, has "no choice but to draw a line in the sand." Ahmadinejad rejected the deception charges and demanded an apology from Obama, while dismissing the French and British leaders as irrelevant. Their thoughts were re enforced by Merkel who was not present.

We were soon to learn that Iran had decided to allow the IAEA inspectors to investigate their facilities and a date was set for the team to arrive in Iran on the 25th of October 2009. What became apparent was that even thought this offer had been made and a date set the West continued to apply aggressive pressure.
The French Foreign Minister only the day after the inspections had started in Iran, cautioned that Israel might launch an attack against Iran soon in the absence of such a deal. Kouchner also said that he didn’t believe sanctions were an effective way to deal with Iran, noting that they wind up disproportionately harming the poor and do little to those in power.

The IAEA had once before stated that Iran was not, in their opinion, a threat and this was re enforced in a more recent report: The IAEA has insisted that the alleged “threat” posed by Iran’s civilian nuclear program is greatly exaggerated, Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack the nation if the international community didn’t force Iran to abandon it.

Within a few days of this French comment Hilary Clinton again passed comment during her visit to Jerusalem……as you would expect they always say the right thing when on home territory. She called on Iran to fulfill its obligations over its controversial nuclear programme, warning the Islamic republic that "patience has limits." "Our view is that we are willing to work toward creative outcomes like shipping out the low enriched uranium to be reprocessed outside of Iran but we're not going to wait forever," "Patience does have finally its limits and it is time for Iran to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities to the international community and accepting this deal would be a good beginning,"

Early November saw Israeli IDF repeats its own thoughts on the Iranian issue when on the 7th of Nov 2009 their Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Avalon warned Iran that it will not tolerate a threat by nuclear weapons. He said: “The one whose bluffing is Iran, which is trying to play with cards they don’t have,” “All the bravado that we see and the testing and the very dangerous and harsh rhetoric are hiding a lot of weaknesses.”

We now return to the current time with words from the IAEA Director-General Muhammad el-Baradei made on the 5th of November 2009 when he said “there was nothing to be worried about.” What is remarkable in this ongoing intimidation of Iran is the fact that many experts around the world thought the same as we the public thought that this was a clear case of bullying by those that already have nuclear weapons. It is also true that the US is hurting over the fact that Iran has vast reserves of oil and gas and the US have no contracts or any control.

Iran basically falls into the same category as Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and are considered to be states promoting terrorism. Would anyone every consider that the axis of evil in actual fact is the US itself. Like all potential trouble spots in the world the US has covert operations operating deep within Iran. For many years Kurdish guerrilla fighters referred to as the PJAK have been operating on cross border operations from Eastern Kurdistan into Iran. This group work in conjunction with US Covert Operation inside Iran and are CIA finananced with additional weapons support.

As we have seen in many other parts of the world these covert operations are intended to disrupt or destabilize the political base in any country. The recent initial detention of 4 US operatives dressed in Afghan costume in Pakistan was a typical example. Locals had reported mysterious helicopter flights at night and personnel being dropped off. One must understand this is a norm in many countries in the world when such operatives disrupt relatively peaceful location turning them into a potential hot bed of militia by bribery or turning one group against another. They are even bold enough to blow up building and blame it on Al Qaeda, Taliban or some other militia. Once this has been achieved the area can then be considered hostile and housing terrorist. Such covert operations are evil in there extreme and fully supported by the US.

It is only a matter of time before those militia that have worked in cooperation with or been trained by the US turn against them. It is obvious that the US and NATO forces should close down all bases on Islamic soil and bring all troops home…..only then will peace return to the world.

In closing I would like to add the words of IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly’s 64th Session in New York. As we have seen so many time when such people are about to leave their position reveal much more than when they are an active member. It is a time when they feel free to say what they feel. In his final address to the UN he said: "Without development, there can be no security - the reverse is also true. By helping to address the root causes of instability and insecurity, including endemic conflicts, poor governance and poverty, we make it less likely that countries will feel the temptation to seek nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction."

The Director General advocated the use of diplomacy rather than military force and isolation in dealing with non-compliant states, and called for "a new system with effective global mechanisms for conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacemaking”



Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant 11/11/2009