The West accuses Iran of nuclear deception
Source: Al Jazeera
The US has accused Iran of stonewalling calls for scrutiny of its nuclear programmes and says it is "deeply troubled" by Tehran's plans to start a reactor in 2014 that could yield bomb material. A European Union statement described Iran's "procrastination" as unacceptable and US envoy Joseph Macmanus said the lack of progress documented Iran's longstanding practice of deception and non-compliance.
"We are deeply troubled that Iran claims that the IR-40 heavy water reactor at Arak could be commissioned as soon as early 2014, but still refuses to provide the requisite design information for the reactor," the US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told the 35-nation Board of Governors on Wednesday, according to a copy of his speech to the closed-door gathering.
Macmanus cited IAEA rules that a member state must inform the Vienna-based UN agency about a nuclear plant, and give design details, as soon as it has decided to build one. Iran has said it must only do so before loading nuclear fuel into the reactor. "Iran's refusal to fulfil this basic obligation must necessarily cause one to ask whether Iran is again pursuing covert nuclear activities," Macmanus said.
The UN probe has been stalled for more than six years and 10 rounds of Iran-IAEA negotiations over the past 18 months have failed to revive it.
Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/06/201365152618148462.html
In all fairness, there is another Mid-East country, the State of Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear reactors producing bomb-making materials. Strangely, the UN has never demanded that nation reveal the design details of its facilities; in fact, we do not even know how many reactors they currently have producing such materials?
Oh, I forgot! Israel is one of the "Good Guys."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Israel is known to have them, and they have mistreated the whistleblower who said so.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)
A South African doctoral student recently wrote a dissertation on the cooperation between South Africa's old, racist regime and Israel in which he used documents from government archives to show Israel once even offered to trade them nukes, in return for uranium ore. Surely you must remember the surprisingly short-lived stink that caused?
As to your point concerning the treaty: The fact Israel is not a signatory should be cause for much greater efforts to force them to reveal the nature of their nuclear bomb industry. They should be given the choice to sign and reveal all, or be treated as the outlaw nation they apparently aspire to be.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)We know there's activity in Israel. It's Iran that is a signatory, and there is no proof of weapons activity in Iran.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It's a matter of simple even-handedness, of fairness. Are you suggesting our close, special allies need not follow the rules if it's inconvenient for them, while everyone else had damn well better, or else!
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you? You do recognize that Israel hardly lets a week go by without threatening to bomb Iran for one reason or another? Why wouldn't they attempt to build a nuclear deterrent in the face of a nuclear power that constantly warns it is about to attack? This seems especially the case when almost no one in the World dares to take any action to restrain Israel in its repeated conventional attacks on neighboring countries and the Palestinian territories.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't care for Israeli actions or attitudes. Yes, they threaten Iran on a regular basis; I think part of their frustration is that Iran hasn't retaliated, and they have no reasonable excuse to bomb them. Israel and the US assassinate their scientists on a more-or-less regular basis, too.
The fact remains that, no matter what Iran is accused of, it is a signatory to the NNPT, it has repeatedly stated that such a weapon is un-Islamic, and there is no proof that they are doing anything more than trying to build peaceful nuclear power. They were granted the right to such a thing by no less a power than the US. It's only after the Iranians deposed an American-backed dictator that the US changed their mind.
Iran has shown no aggression towards her neighbours, unlike Israel. Yes, her president postured and preened and posed and said outrageous things. Unfortunately...or perhaps, fortunately, the president has no real power. Israel has continued a long and vicious occupation, uses terrorism as a state tactic, refuses the indigenous nomads rights, steals whatever resources it can, including the water table (why do you think that wall wanders as it does?), and acts as though it has the high ground. When they are criticized, they talk about security and the holocaust. However, the Palestinians and the middle east had nothing to do with the holocaust, so depriving the Palestinians of statehood and land seems, to me, unacceptable.
If there is a war with Iran, I doubt it will be started by the Iranians. It will be started by people who project their reactions to what Israel does on to a state that works entirely differently.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Your first two post titles led me to draw the wrong conclusion.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
Iraq had nothing.
But the USA killed tens of thousands, spread depleted uranium bullets by the millions (toxic, but not radioactive) all over the country, bulldozed down farmlands (on the premise that they (the Iraqis) who belonged in their own country) could hide there) - depleted their economy with sanctions, and spread lies that reached the UN with acceptance to launch their illegal war.
Obama has not changed a thing - Presidents don't run the USA - not since Kennedy tried, - ya know what happened to him . . .
Military run the USA - it's that simple.
CC
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)First class job of nation-building that was. We're the "Freedom Givers" alright.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
built themselves a billion dollar "embassy" (fortress) in Iraq while the different factions were fighting each other.
Despite all the missiles and bombings, the USA never targeted the Oil Ministry
"doh"
USA's invasion had 2 purposes - get control of the oil, and set up yet another base in someone else's country.
That's what they are good at.
Now they are after Iran.
Iran has oil too.
CC
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:45 PM - Edit history (5)
On the other hand, they left the Iraqi National Museum completely unguarded, allowing some of the most important, priceless and irreplaceable cultural objects in the World to be looted or simply smashed by ignorant thieves. Many of those museum pieces still have not been accounted for. That is criminal irresponsibility on a level with the Sultan who burned the Library of Alexandria to heat his bathes.
Centuries after the United States is no more, we will be cursed for causing that unforgivable loss to our memory of civilization's very beginnings.
WovenGems
(776 posts)But, but the oil production to a certain level was contracted out and winning the war does not negate the contracts. And oil production fell big time and still hasn't gotten back to prewar levels. One would think an oil boy like Bush would have known that.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
George was pushed into office by his father - he (his father) wanted a puppet in office.
And what a good puppet he was.
and USA didn't "win"
They bullied a poor country into being poorer, then slaughtered tens of thousands and maiming many more. The mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, friends, etc. have not forgotten what the illegal invasion by the USA did to their lives.
Anyone realize how much hatred the USA created over that war?
Get rid of the term "terrorism"
It's called "payback time"
CC
