Israel: IAEA's report 'unacceptable'
By YAAKOV KATZ

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.

(As opposed to Anti-Iranian, as these Israeli Extremists are? Such Disinformation is utilized by cowards who cannot support their own position.)

The long-awaited IAEA report released on Thursday found Iran to be generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history, but warned that its knowledge of Teheran's present atomic work was shrinking.

The report also confirmed that Teheran continued to defy the UN Security Council by ignoring its repeated demands to freeze uranium enrichment - a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

(And nuclear power ... See comments within the original post.)

"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."

(Personal attacks is all this racist has. He's just angry because the UN has exposed the LIES these Extremists are trying to peddle, in order to feign justification for a war.)

Last week, Lieberman said that ElBaradei was "part of the problem, not part of the solution." Despite the dissatisfaction with the report, Lieberman said that Israel still believed it was possible to impose further sanctions on Iran in light of the Islamic Republic's refusal to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

(But Russia and China have both said they would veto any such effort, which is really about leveraging conditions for war, so that isn't likely. Other countries are wary of signing on, as the evidence is against this, and the Extremists' plot is well-known.)

Reflecting that stance, Britain's Foreign Office said in a statement issued shortly after the report that "as the IAEA report now shows that Iran has still not addressed several issues about its nuclear program, we will pursue further Security Council and EU sanctions."

(Which is interesting, because this followed closely on the heels of pressure from the US on Brown, who hadn't said anything about Iran.)

"If Iran wants to restore trust in its program it must come clean on all outstanding issues without delay," the statement said. It also said Teheran must restore broader and stronger inspection rights to IAEA teams and suspend its enrichment activities to avoid such penalties.

The White House, too, said it would continue to push for a third round of sanctions against Iran despite the report. "We believe that selective cooperation is not good enough," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

(There's that term again. It's like they all wrote these Talking Points together ...)

Lieberman said that the report made it clear that Iran was still hiding large parts of its nuclear program but took ElBaradei to task for writing in the report that Iran was cooperating and for not recommending a new round of sanctions.

(He also called Israel's plot for war "an Act of Madness". Why is Lieberman, a man who supports a 'final solution' to the Palestinians, a part of the Government anyway?)

"What does it mean that they are cooperating?" asked Lieberman, whose Strategic Affairs Ministry is tasked with formulating Israeli policy vis-à-vis Iran. "The moment that they continue to enrich uranium there is nothing to talk about."

Lieberman said he was hopeful that the United States and France would continue to work to impose new sanctions despite the conciliatory report. He also expressed hope that a report on Iran's nuclear program being compiled by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana would be "more balanced."

(In other words, "fix the facts" ...)

A senior Israeli official reacted by saying "as expected, this was a mild report."

(As expected, this recation proves that this has little to do with any nuclear program, and everything to so with an Act of Aggression these whack-jobs view as an inevitability, which is about geostrategy, oil, elminating another ally of the Palestinians, and increasing Israel/America's 'Regional Influence'.)

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said: "It is clear that the Iranians are in continuing violation of their international obligations under two unanimous UN Security Council resolutions. The international community must act now and send a clear message to the leadership in Teheran that this is unacceptable and the consequences for continuing violations will be forthcoming."

(Israel has violated Security Council Resolutions just today, in violating the sovereignty of Lebanon, which they've done several times now.)

Israeli officials have publicly criticized ElBaradei over recent weeks, fearing that his report would play into Iranian hands by allowing them more time to push ahead with their nuclear program. Jerusalem feared that any report that praised Iranian cooperation would jeopardize efforts to galvanize support for a third round of sanctions.

(And their plans for War. They didn't 'criticize' ElBaredei, they attacked him. There is a difference.)

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz noted on Wednesday that Russia and China were looking for an excuse to avoid further sanctions.

Publication of the report emboldened Iran, with the country's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili saying that it proved accusations that Teheran was pursuing nuclear weapons were baseless and that new sanctions against the country would be wrong.

(That's an interesting phrase ... What it actually did was prove that Israel and the US are attempting to create the illusion of a crisis where none exists.)

He said Teheran has answered all the questions by the agency and made "good progress" in cooperating with it. In light of the IAEA report, "many accusations are now baseless," Jalili said, referring to US claims that Teheran was seeking to build nuclear weapons. "Those powers who base their accusations on this I hope will reconsider what they say."

Jalili insisted Iran had an irrefutable right to its nuclear program. "Iran has shown it is working within the framework of the law but at the same time, we want our [nuclear] rights," Jalili said. "We have done everything to have a peaceful nuclear program."

Much of the 10-page report made available to the press focused on the history of Iran's black-market procurements and past development of its enrichment technology - and the agency appeared to be giving Teheran a pass on that issue, repeatedly saying it concludes that "Iran's statements are consistent with...information available to the agency."

(And because that work was undertaken due to the history of US/CIA intervention in the country's politics, again because of oil and geostrategy.)

At the same time, a senior UN official acknowledged that the agency remained in the dark about Iran's present work with new and more modern enrichment technologies that would allow it to enrich uranium at far greater speed and volume than with the outmoded machines the agency is monitoring.

(Hmmmm ... I wonder who this 'senior official' is, since he's the only person not identified in this article.)

Mark Weiss and AP contributed to this report.
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127517568&pagename=JPost/JPArtic


From a Saturday, November 17, 2007 entry on Informed Comment Global Affairs, a group blog run by Juan Cole, Manan Ahmed, Farideh Farhi, and Barnett R. Rubin

It is always interesting to read the actual text of reports issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding Iran not only because of what they reveal about Iran’s program, but also because of the interestingly partial way various news organizations and governments end up interpreting or representing the report to audiences they are sure will not read the reports themselves.

The IAEA report that just came out regarding Iran was much anticipated because of the agreement on a work plan between the IAEA and Iran regarding a time frame for the resolution of “outstanding issues” that had remained regarding Iran’s past activities. Based on this agreement Iran was expected to cooperate and effectively divulge information that would allow the IAEA to assess whether or not Iran has come clean on its past activities. This process is still ongoing but the November report was expected to give a hint about the extent of Iranian cooperation.

The IAEA and its director Mohammad ElBaradei were heavily criticized by the United States and several European governments for the work plan because of its focus on Iran’s past activities or breaches and the possibility of the resolution of the questions regarding these past activities undercutting the force of the UN sanctions regime that demands suspension of Iran’s enrichment program. As such, the report issued on November 15 had to be, and is, very clear that “contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities.”

The IAEA report also states that “since early 2006 [this is when Iran suspended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol due to UN Security Council initiated sanctions against Iran], the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, pursuant the Additional Protocol and as a transparency measure. As result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current programme is diminishing.”

On the remaining major issues relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear program, however, the report paints a cooperative picture of Iran and states: “The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided on the declared past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programmes are consistent with its findings. The Agency will, however, continue to seek corroboration and is continuing to verify the completeness of Iran’s declarations.” This is not a statement of closure of the issue as the Iranian leaders are claiming but is an important steep forward. In fact, the language of Iran providing information that is “consistent with the Agency’s findings” or “information available to the Agency” from other sources is repeated several times in the report regarding a variety of issues.

Also positively reported is Iran’s level of cooperation. The report explicitly states that “Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan. However its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive.” This I take to mean that Iran has responded to questions and cooperated in specific areas when asked but not before. The IAEA clearly wants Iran to engage in “active cooperation and full transparency” in a proactive manner but the report does not state that Iran’s reactive approach has led to lack of cooperation as agreed upon in the work plan.

Finally, the IAEA is also quite explicit that “the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities.” But, as mentioned above, the Agency wants Iran to implement the Additional Protocol to prevent its “diminishing” knowledge of Iran’s current program (this is by the way something Iran has said, at least in the past, that it will do if Iran’s nuclear dossier returns to the IAEA).

So a close reading of the report suggests that the IAEA is unhappy with Iran’s continuation of enrichment (because it is contrary to the Security Council decisions) and would like Iran to voluntarily implement the Additional Protocol as it did in the past. At the same time, the report suggests good progress on the issue of Iran’s past activities. It also reveals no evidence of diversion to a weapons program despite “a total of seven unannounced inspections” carried out which are beyond Iran’s current NPT obligations (as I understand it, IAEA inspectors have been issued multiple entry visas to enter Iran as they wish).

I lay the report out in detail because I think it is important as a backdrop to the hesitance shown by Russia and China in approving another set of sanctions against Iran before IAEA’s engagement with Iran through the work plan is finished.

But as I said above it is also interesting and quite revealing to see how the report itself is reported. In Iran, the statements about non-diversion and consistency with the Agency’s findings are trumpeted by government officials as an affirmation of Iran’s righteousness. The United States government, on the other hand, has found the report inadequate and in fact has immediately called for a Security Council meeting to discuss a new round of sanctions (a meeting China reportedly initially refused to attend but has now reluctantly agreed to do so after Thanksgiving)

These are expected governmental positions. Perhaps also not too unexpectedly, the American newspapers and news agencies also do seem a bit too willing to tow the U.S. government line. The New York Times, in a piece entitled “Report Raises New Doubts on Iran’s Nuclear Program,” reports that the Agency “said in a report on Thursday that Iran had made new but incomplete disclosures about its past nuclear activities, missing a critical deadline under an agreement with the agency and virtually assuring a new push by the United States to impose stricter international sanctions.” No where in text of this piece, however, there is anything about what these “new doubts” are or where exactly the report has said that a critical deadline has been passed. Also not referred to are the explicit statements about non-diversion of nuclear material and consistency with the Agency’s findings.

The piece goes on to say, “the report made clear that even while providing some answers, Iran has continued to shield many aspects of its nuclear program.” The report says no such thing but the NYT piece takes the report’s reference to Iran’s “reactive rather than proactive” cooperation, mentioned in the paragraph about Iran’s “sufficient” and “timely” cooperation with the work plan, along with the suspension of the Additional Protocol (calling it instead “restrictions Iran has placed on inspectors”) as the reasons for why the “agency’s understanding of the full scope of Iran’s nuclear program is diminishing” and represents this as a "shielding" by Iran.

The Associated Press’ heading is “IAEA: Iran Not Open About Nuke Program,” while the opening of the piece is: “The U.S. called for new sanctions against Iran after a U.N. report Thursday that said the Tehran regime has been generally truthful about key aspects of its past nuclear activities, but is continuing to enrich uranium.”

After several changes in the Internet versions, the Washington Post’s heading ended up slightly less provocative (“U.S. to Seek New Sanctions against Iran: UN Report Faults Tehran’s Input on Nuclear Program”). But the text begins by saying “The Bush administration plans to push for new sanctions against Iran after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported yesterday that Tehran is providing "diminishing" information about its controversial nuclear program, U.S. officials said. In a critically timed assessment, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran provided "timely" and helpful new information on a secret program that became public in 2002, but that it did not fully answer questions or allow full access to Iranian personnel. Iran is even less cooperative on its current program, the IAEA reported.” This reporting is not only flatly wrong regarding what the report said about full access to Iranian personnel but also completely mum, like the reporting from AP and NYT, about the reasons for the “diminishing” information (the suspension of the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol which was instigated by the Security Council action).

If you are wondering if there is reporting that accurately uses the language used by the IAEA findings, I think the BBC piece entitled “Mixed UN Nuclear Report for Iran,” although short and still mum on the reasons for why the Additional Protocol is no longer voluntarily implemented by Iran, gives a relatively accurate description of the issues involved. So it can be done! Why it is not, make a guess….

www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/17/18461783.php

Here is a link to the full report:
www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranIAEAreportNov15.pdf