There is reportedly
a heated debate underway between members of the Cheney Cabal – who want to bomb-bomb-Iran
– and members of the Condi diplomacy crowd, who want to conduct "covert"
destabilizing operations within Iran and to impose crushing sanctions on the
The "diplomatic" approach towards effecting regime change in Iran
reportedly has the support of the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community.
Unfortunately, the diplomatic approach – which has already resulted in the
defenestration of the Treaty
on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the corruption of the Board
of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the UN Security
Council, itself – doesn’t seem to be working.
As a result of more than two years of "diplomatic" pressure, the
IAEA Board did adopt resolution GOV/2006/14
[.pdf] and the Security Council did adopt UNSCR
1747 [.pdf], in which the Council, inter alia:
"re-affirmed that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall without further
delay take the steps required by the Board of Governors in (IAEA) resolution
GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful
purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions."
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei has just submitted report GOV/2007/22
covering (a) the implementation of Iran’s NPT Safeguards Agreement and (b) Iran‘s
compliance with UNSCR 1747.
Contrary to what you’ve been told by the same folks – minus Judith Miller –
who sold you on Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq, ElBaradei reports that
Iran continues to be in complete compliance with its NPT Safeguards Agreement.
"Pursuant to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been
providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has
provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in
connection with declared nuclear material and facilities."
"the Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material
Hence, contrary to statements by "senior administration officials,"
Iran continues to fulfill all its NPT obligations.
However, ElBaradei reports that Iran is not in compliance with IAEA
resolution GOV/2006/14 and UNSCR 1747.
Nor does it appear that Iran intends to so comply.
Here’s what Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had
to say [.pdf] when he was allowed to address the Security Council, after
– of course – UNSCR 1747 had already passed.
"As an organ of an international Organization created by States,
the Security Council is bound by law, and Member States have every
right to insist that the Council keep within the powers that they
accorded it under the Charter of the United Nations.
"The Security Council must exercise those powers consistently with the
purposes and principles of the Charter. Equally, the measures it takes must
be consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and with
other international law. Members of the Security Council do not have the right
to undermine the Council’s credibility.
"There is every reason to assert that the Security Council’s consideration
of the Iranian peaceful nuclear program has no legal basis, since the referral
of the case to the Council [by the IAEA Board] and then the adoption of resolutions
[by the UNSC] fail to meet the minimum standards of legality. Iran’s peaceful
nuclear activities cannot, by any stretch of law, fact or logic, be characterized
as a threat to peace."
The NPT obligates no-nuke signatories like Iran to subject all
"source or special fissionable materials" and all activities involving
such materials to an IAEA safeguards agreement.
The IAEA Statute
– not the NPT – provides a mechanism for ensuring "compliance with the undertaking
against use [of safeguarded materials and activities] in furtherance of any
Since 1974, all Iranian nuclear programs have been subject to a Safeguards
Agreement [.pdf] with the International Atomic Energy Agency – as required
by the NPT.
As of this writing, the IAEA Director-General continues to report that Iran
is in complete compliance with its Safeguards Agreement and that
no NPT-proscribed materials have ever been diverted by Iran to a military
So, what are these "outstanding questions" to which UNSCR 1747 refers?
Well, in the process of negotiating an Additional Protocol to the
existing Iranian Safeguards Agreement Iran voluntarily told the IAEA
back in 2002 that, as a result of the United States forcing Russia to
cancel the sale of a turnkey gas-centrifuge plant – which the Iranians
had an "inalienable right" to acquire and operate under the NPT – the
Iranians had been attempting to construct gas centrifuges of similar
But, contrary to Condi and the Cheney Cabal, under the Iranian
Safeguards Agreement as it then existed, the Iranians were not
obligated to tell the IAEA about any of that activity until they began
processing "source or special nuclear materials" for introduction into
those gas centrifuges.
Nevertheless, the Iranians had volunteered to suspend all such activities for
the duration of the "Paris
Accord" negotiations with the Brits-Germans-French. Although the IAEA
was not a party to the negotiations, the IAEA was "invited" to verify the suspension.
The Paris Accord negotiations were undertaken by the Iranians in the
hope they could obtain "objective guarantees" that the European Union
would defy the United States, would reestablish normal diplomatic and
trade relations that would, inter alia, respect both Iran's "inalienable" NPT rights and European NPT obligations.
On March 23, 2005, Iran offered a package to the Brits-Germans-French that
included a voluntary "confinement" of Iran's nuclear programs, to which – as
a result of pressure by Condi’s "diplomats" – the Brits-Germans-French
never even acknowledged. Much less did they ever offer Iran "firm commitments
on security issues."
So, in July, 2005, the Iranians decided to end their voluntary
suspension of IAEA Safeguarded activities and so informed the IAEA.
As noted, the IAEA was not a party to the Paris Accord negotiations,
so the success or failure of them was none of the IAEA’s business.
Nevertheless, under intense pressure from Condi’s diplomats, first
the IAEA Board of Governors, and eventually the UN Security Council,
made it their business.
Hence, there resulted a series of Board and Security Council resolutions that
have demanded – in effect – that Iran immediately cease and permanently abandon
all those activities which the NPT affords an "inalienable right"
and accept the institution in Iran of an inspection regime rivaling the one
imposed on Iraq by the Security Council in the aftermath of the first Gulf War.
The alternative for Iran?
Apparently, the Cheney Cabal gets to launch Gulf War III.