IAEA report on Iran poses challenges for United States

[vigilante]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency released Tuesday provided the strongest evidence yet that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, including clandestine procurement of equipment and design information needed to make nuclear arms, high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead, and preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test -- powerful evidence that refutes the regime's specious claims that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Speaking on ABC's "This Week," former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States should never take the option of military force off the table when it comes to dealing with Iran because the regime is clearly trying to obtain a nuclear weapon and has repressed its own people.

"The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left," added Rice.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysi...ited-States/UPI-64401320838500/#ixzz1dFFpUdye


Another one's joining the nuclear club. Personally, I do not want see any nuclear in that region. But, While İsrail a country that untouchable by the international law and privileged one aganist the nuclear prohibitions, it's natural that her rivals want the same.

 

[RoccoR]

Vigilante, et al,

For more than half a century, the US has been trying to inject its will upon the nation of the Middle East and Persian Gulf; through both peaceful means and war. It has yet to achieve the desired results. There are a number of reasons for that; but the most important one is that of leadership. We, as a nation, simply don't have the political or diplomatic leadership that is required to face the challenges of the 21st Century. We have an Administration today that does nothing but recycle the same old tired, inept, self-serving and lazy bums that we pass-off as wise statesmen. It is not reasonable to assume that we are going to get different political, economic or military results if we approach each problem with the same knowledge, skills and abilities that we've used over the last half-century; and have demonstrated a lack of Progress.



The situation we face with respect to Iran, is essentially, of our own making. There is a history between the US and Iran, that we cannot change. We can, however mend it; if we choose an alternate path.




Nuclear proliferation is a difficult subject. But at the end of the day, it is a "regional" concern and not a US concern. And the solution must be developed at a "regional" level. (As you already know.) Iran is bordered by six (6) nations (Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan), by land; and and addition four (4) states that compose its Persian Gulf neighbors (Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). It is these ten (10) nations that need to determine the protocols by which the regional neighborhood will abide. It is not a US matter absent a credible threat to the US itself (not the region).

Each time the US becomes involved into matters for which it has no true standing, it does nothing but complicate the situation and further compromise its integrity.

You mentioned Israel. Yes, it is another complication of the US making. Israel is in open violation of the Rome Statues (Part 2, Article 8, Para 2(b) - War Crimes), to wit:

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

​

Now the US tries to abides by this ICC Statue, as it was one of the Allied Nations that established it. And, it most recently (June, 2004) exercised it with respect to Iraq; but only because it was stated in the Convention.

Under Article 43 (Hague ), an occupying power must restore and maintain public order and civil life, including public welfare, in an occupied territory. Local legislation and institutions based upon such legislation must be respected by an occupying power and by any local authorities acting under the global control of the occupying power.

It is generally understood that neither the US or Israel are parties to the agreement (Rome Statues). The statues require a higher ethical standard for which the policies of each nation cannot match. This did not go unnoticed by the Arab and Persian Gulf nations, for which none signed. This becomes significant because none of the Arab/Persian Gulf states agreed to any of the prohibitions on NBC Weapons uses.

Since the US and Israel - both - did not agree to the high standard the Middle East/Persian Gulf states decided that they would abide by the US lead (not to be held by the higher standard). And this is just one of many mistakes that cannot be corrected. The US feels it is exempt from the ICC, then why should any other nation chose to follow another path?

The US has very little standing in whether or not any Middle East/Persian Gulf state, independently or collaboratively, develops any level of WMD. That is not to say that the regional nations themselves cannot enforce local protocols.

The US has no business trying to selectively enforce standards for which even the US cannot comply.

Just One Man's Opinion,
R

​

 

[WolfLarsen]

Iran has the right to defend itself. It has a right to acquire nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel and the United States. The United States has already invaded two countries that are Iran's neighbors, no doubt that makes Iran nervous. Perhaps the aggressive behavior of both the United States and Israel makes Iran feel that it needs a nuclear arsenal to protect itself?

In addition, it is very hypocritical of the US government to try to deny other nations nuclear weapons. After all, the United States has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the entire world. In addition, the United States is the only country to have used atomic weapons - both in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The United States and Israel should leave Iran alone.

 

[dogtowner]

Its not as if the rest of the civilized world is not in agreement on stopping nuclear proliferation.
The rest are, as always, trying to make a buck.

 

[WolfLarsen]

With all due respect I am not sure what a previous poster meant by the "civilized world". Perhaps the civilized world are decent hard-working people who have little effect on what the politicians/dictators/kings of the world do? The rulers of the world are leading us towards World War III. And no government on earth is leading us faster towards World War III than the US government.
Was the reference to those making a buck about the war profiteers? In my book the war profiteers are war criminals.
I do not like the government of Iran. But I don't like the government of the USA either. Neither one is legitimate. But it is for the people of Iran to throw their own rulers in the garbage can, just as it is for the people of the USA to throw our rulers in the garbage can. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans speak for the majority of the American people, they speak only for the wealthiest 1%. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are parties of war. And if there's one thing the American people are sick of its war!
Hands off Iran! No war with Iran!

 

[dogtowner]

With all due respect I am not sure what a previous poster meant by the "civilized world". Perhaps the civilized world are decent hard-working people who have little effect on what the politicians/dictators/kings of the world do? The rulers of the world are leading us towards World War III. And no government on earth is leading us faster towards World War III than the US government.
Was the reference to those making a buck about the war profiteers? In my book the war profiteers are war criminals.
I do not like the government of Iran. But I don't like the government of the USA either. Neither one is legitimate. But it is for the people of Iran to throw their own rulers in the garbage can, just as it is for the people of the USA to throw our rulers in the garbage can. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans speak for the majority of the American people, they speak only for the wealthiest 1%. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are parties of war. And if there's one thing the American people are sick of its war!
Hands off Iran! No war with Iran!

nobody wants war with Iran. but its unacceptable to permit them nuclear weapons.

 

[RoccoR]

dogtowner, et al,

I keep hearing this phase!

nobody wants war with Iran. but its unacceptable to permit them nuclear weapons.

(COMMENT)

Who (specifically) says it is "unacceptable."

And, I would prefer that you don't use the NPT as a basis. Iran can withdraw from that at any time. It is not an absolute and totally binding document.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[dogtowner]

dogtowner, et al,

I keep hearing this phase!



(COMMENT)

Who (specifically) says it is "unacceptable."

And, I would prefer that you don't use the NPT as a basis. Iran can withdraw from that at any time. It is not an absolute and totally binding document.

Most Respectfully,
R

your answer here

visually (green indicates who)

 

[RoccoR]

dogtowner, et al,

Again, I am not defending Iran. I merely point-out that the commitments to the NPT are NOT absolute. All Iran has to do it opt out of the treaty. Thus the argument relative to the NPT becomes moot.

As for the treaty itself, it is about what each county agrees it will not do; not about what other countries will not do? In part the Preamble before Article I says,

​

Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources. Have agreed as follows

(COMMENT)

The threat to use force in order for a state to give-up its sovereignty and territorial integrity is inconsistent with the purpose of the treaty. The part that trips people up relative to the treaty is:

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

​

Once Iran opts out of the treaty, there is not legitimate complaint.

Again, the mere intimidation and threat of military strike to a country that has not proven to be in violation of the treaty, is an "extraordinary event."

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

And so, already the threat of violence has given cause for Iran to withdraw; and assume the posture to defend itself against the announced intentions (eminent threat); a supreme interest. It would appear to me that the US and Israel may - indeed start an armed conflict over this. They may force Iran to withdraw and drive any research underground, beyond any inspection and safeguard.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

​

 

[dogtowner]

dogtowner, et al,

Again, I am not defending Iran. I merely point-out that the commitments to the NPT are NOT absolute. All Iran has to do it opt out of the treaty. Thus the argument relative to the NPT becomes moot.

As for the treaty itself, it is about what each county agrees it will not do; not about what other countries will not do? In part the Preamble before Article I says,

​

​

(COMMENT)

The threat to use force in order for a state to give-up its sovereignty and territorial integrity is inconsistent with the purpose of the treaty. The part that trips people up relative to the treaty is:

Once Iran opts out of the treaty, there is not legitimate complaint.

Again, the mere intimidation and threat of military strike to a country that has not proven to be in violation of the treaty, is an "extraordinary event."

​

And so, already the threat of violence has given cause for Iran to withdraw; and assume the posture to defend itself against the announced intentions (eminent threat); a supreme interest. It would appear to me that the US and Israel may - indeed start an armed conflict over this. They may force Iran to withdraw and drive any research underground, beyond any inspection and safeguard.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

​

I was only responding to your question. All agreements are subject to dismissal and/or disregard. But they are on record.

 

[Arbopa]

Iran has the right to defend itself. It has a right to acquire nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel and the United States. The United States has already invaded two countries that are Iran's neighbors, no doubt that makes Iran nervous. Perhaps the aggressive behavior of both the United States and Israel makes Iran feel that it needs a nuclear arsenal to protect itself?

Defend itself? It has stated, many times, it wants to removed Israel off the face of the globe. That is not defense. No matter how you look at it.

 

[RoccoR]

Arbopa, et al,

Yes, it does sound a bit strange. But it is NOT a double standard.

Defend itself? It has stated, many times, it wants to removed Israel off the face of the globe. That is not defense. No matter how you look at it.

(COMMENT)

Both the US and Israel had the capability to launch significantly damaging and sustainable offensive operations against Iran. Any threat they make is "credible." Both countries are presumed to be "nuclear capable." Recent threat made against Iran sound most ominous and eminent.

By comparison, Iran has a very limited capacity to launch offensive operations, with virtually no sustainability. It has extremely limited capability to launch offensive operations against US interests and no sustainability for such operations. None of Iran's threats are credible and Iran is not nuclear capable.

> Essentially, Tehran can be as boastful as it wants as long as it is NOT a credible threat.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Arbopa]

Both the US and Israel had the capability to launch significantly damaging and sustainable offensive operations against Iran.

The difference is the US and Israel, in general, do not seek to wipe any nation off the face of the earth. Or either or both of us would have done so long ago.

There is no question in my mind that Iran would act on it's desire.

 

[dogtowner]

The difference is the US and Israel, in general, do not seek to wipe any nation off the face of the earth. Or either or both of us would have done so long ago.

There is no question in my mind that Iran would act on it's desire.

and now the eligious leadership is fully on board with the civil leadership in its declaration of intent to eliminate Israel and harm the US in any way possible. whether they are able or not at this juncture is less significant than the harm they could do with nuclear arms. if they are foolish enough to use such over the top hyperbole there is no guarantee they are not foolish enough to attampt to carry it out. lets not forget Hussein nexst door was foolish enough to test the will of the world in attacking Kuwait. He gamboled on his ability to personally escape justice and lost. These others don't seem any smarter.

 

[RoccoR]

Arbopa, dogtowner, et al,

This is a commonly held assessment. But both the US and Israel must move cautiously towards a solution; neither of which is doing so now.

The difference is the US and Israel, in general, do not seek to wipe any nation off the face of the earth. Or either or both of us would have done so long ago.

​

There is no question in my mind that Iran would act on it's desire.​

​

​

and now the eligious leadership is fully on board with the civil leadership in its declaration of intent to eliminate Israel and harm the US in any way possible. whether they are able or not at this juncture is less significant than the harm they could do with nuclear arms. if they are foolish enough to use such over the top hyperbole there is no guarantee they are not foolish enough to attampt to carry it out. lets not forget Hussein nexst door was foolish enough to test the will of the world in attacking Kuwait. He gamboled on his ability to personally escape justice and lost. These others don't seem any smarter.

​

​

​

(COMMENT)

Most of the general populations of the Middle East and Persian Gulf find the no sympathy in the plight of Israel. It is not simply Iran. The goal (should be) to set the conditions such that Israel can peacefully coexist with its neighbors. But even if that were to occur, I believe that Iran would still find a reason to challenge the regional neighborhood.

(REHASH)

As I have said before, Iran wants something. It is important for us to understand what it is and why they do what they do.​

​

Iran wants to be the Lord Protector of the Persian Gulf (its ethnic Name Sake). It wants to be the Regional Hegemony; the little Islamic Republic that made good - rolled into the big league. It wants the Persian Navy in Bahrain and the US 5th Fleet out. It wants neighborhood respect; and when Iran speaks - the world listens. ​

​

They have, in the past, not been taken seriously by the Western Powers; and just marginally serious by the Middle East/Persian Gulf neighborhood. They are considered regional rabble-rouser by many, getting attention on the international scene by taking provocative actions. They want you to think they have a viable covert Nuclear Weapons Program (NWP), without actually having a Nuclear Weapons Program. If the US thinks Iran has a viable (but latent) NWP, and that it covertly acquired the weapons grade material, and is about to test a nuclear device any day now,--- the US will concede more to get Iran to abandon the effort.​

​

​

NOTE: This was exactly the strategy the North Koreans used to get the addition aid. We called the arrangement "The Agreed Framework."​

​

But in order to get to that point, everyone has to believe that Iran is on the brink of being a Nuclear Power; and that international sanctions are not going to prevent it. Then - the serious negotiations will begin, and America (and maybe the greater Persian Gulf neighborhood) will be willing to give some serious concessions up to Iran.​

​

But you have to believe that Iran is on the verge and the sky is about to fall. Remembering that most American use the absolute protection of the 51 state (Israel) as the defining reason for preventing a Iranian NWP. The argument that Iran will give the proscribed technology to terrorist is rather awkward in that the Georgians have already attempted to put weapons grade material on the market. The NPT does not protect against terrorist risks - and Iran is by no means the primary threat.​

​

(COMMENT)

Igniting another conflict in the Middle East and Persian Gulf Region may not be the best of all possible solution, nor the answer to the equation: How do we maintain peace?

NOTE: If it comes to an armed conflict, in order to make it a lasting solution, we would have to reduce the entire country back to the 17th Century. Otherwise, we merely delay the solution for a future generation. We would have to take-out all technology and infrastructure and totally isolate Iran from external contact with the rest of the world. If not, the world just runs the risk of creating another, never ending conflict similar to what the Israelis have faced with the Palestinians for more than a half-century.​

The object is to keep Iran inside the NPT, to the extent possible, and obtain as much inside information we can on the direction the overall program is headed. Then, through quiet diplomacy, stir the leadership in the direction of non-weapons interest. The US does not have the knowledge, skills, or insight and credibility to lead this endeavor. This must come from Regional Peer Pressure; not from arrogant and untrustworthy infidels in America. The US just doesn't have the ability to pursue such an effort. And in that regard, anything that Israel proposes merely fans the flames of an already volatile situation. If we force Iran to abdicate their participation in the NPT, the R&D will go underground with NO external surveillance. This then amplifies any threat potential they may actual have.

Most Respectfully,
R