Is it true that President Bush’s recent speech
to the UN General Assembly means he no longer intends
to use Iran’s "defiance" of a resolution by the Board of Governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency and a resolution by the UN Security Council – which violate
the IAEA Statute, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the
UN Charter, itself – as an excuse to do unto Iran what Israel recently did unto
Well, shortly after Bush appointed Condi Rice Secretary of State, she informed
the conferees at the 2005 NPT Review Conference that.
"Britain, France and Germany, with our support, are seeking to reach a diplomatic
solution to the Iranian nuclear problem, a solution that given the history of
clandestine nuclear weapons work in that country, must include permanent cessation
of Iran's enrichment and reprocessing efforts, as well as dismantlement of equipment
and facilities related to such activity."
Now the previous November, Britain, France and Germany (E3) – allegedly on
behalf of the European Union – had entered into the
Paris Accord with Iran.
The Paris Accord begins with the E3/EU recognizing "Iran’s rights under the
Iran offered to continue voluntarily adhering to an Additional Protocol
to its IAEA NPT Safeguards Agreement, in advance of its ratification.
Iran also offered to extend its voluntary suspension of all uranium-enrichment
and spent-fuel reprocessing related activities. The E3/EU recognized that "this
suspension is a voluntary confidence-building measure and not a legal obligation."
So how come Condi's munchkin told
the NPT conferees that the outcome of the EU-Iranian negotiations "must include
permanent cessation of Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing efforts, as well as
dismantlement of equipment and facilities related to such activity"?
Worse, we now know that on March 23, 2005 – more than a month before Condi's
munchkin made public her ultimatum – the Iranians had made a confidential offer
of "objective guarantees suggested by various independent scientists and observers
from the United States and Europe." The package included:
Restriction on Iran's uranium-enrichment program, to include (a) a verifiable
LEU reactor-fuel ceiling on enrichment level, (b) a verifiable ceiling on
LEU reactor-fuel enrichment quantity to that needed to meet contingency
requirement of Iran’s power reactors, (c) immediate conversion of all enriched-uranium
to reactor-fuel rods,
Iran’s foregoing the NPT right to reprocess spent fuel
Legislative and regulatory measures to include (a) ratification of the
Additional Protocol, (b) a permanent ban on the development, stockpiling
and use of nuclear weapons through binding national legislation; (c) enhancement
of Iran's export control regulations
Continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at uranium conversion and
enrichment facilities above and beyond that required by the Additional Protocol
It now seems that Condi had essentially prevented the E3/EU from accepting
this magnanimous offer.
Nor did she allow the E3/EU to submit their proposal by the agreed-upon July
So, on August 1, 2005, the Iranians informed
[.pdf] the IAEA Director-General – who had agreed to verify the voluntary suspension
of certain IAEA Safeguarded activities for the duration of the Paris Accord
negotiations – that they intended to resume some of those Safeguarded activities,
which had now been suspended for almost two years.
"Against all its sincere efforts and maximum flexibility, Iran has not received
a proposal as of today, and all public and diplomatic information, particularly
the letter of 29 July 2005 of the E3 Ministers, indicate that the content of
the eventual proposal will be totally unacceptable.
"We have been informed that the proposal not only fails to address Iran's
rights for peaceful development of nuclear technology, but even falls far short
of correcting the illegal and unjustified restrictions placed on Iran's economic
and technological development, let alone providing firm guarantees for economic,
technological and nuclear cooperation and firm commitments on security issues.
"While we had made it crystal clear that no incentive would be sufficient
to compromise Iran's inalienable right to all aspects of peaceful nuclear technology,
such offers of incentives are in and of themselves demeaning and totally incommensurate
with Iran and its vast capabilities, potentials and requirements.
"It must be underlined that all States party to the NPT, without discrimination,
have an inalienable right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. As
this right is "inalienable," it cannot be undermined or curtailed under any
pretext. Any attempt to do so, would be an attempt to undermine a pillar of
the Treaty and indeed the Treaty itself."
And to undermine the IAEA. And the Security Council.
And the Mullahs? No, Bush still
[.pdf] intends to nuke them.