New Nuclear Weapons

I can't help but think of a passage from the bible I read recently (book of Matthew, about hypocrisy) when I come across this article, in the context of the US's assertion that Iran isn't living up to their Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty obligations (which the IAEA says they are, but what does the IAEA know?).

From The Washington Post:

New Nuclear Weapons Program To Continue

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 2, 2006; Page A07

The Nuclear Weapons Council, made up of senior Defense Department and National Nuclear Security Administration officials, said yesterday that they plan to continue developing a new nuclear weapons program even though recent studies suggested that existing stockpiles are in better condition than had been thought.

The announcement comes just two days after the release of studies by the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories showing that plutonium triggers in currently stockpiled weapons will remain reliable for 90 to 100 years.

While many western media agencies are ignoring the news, it has not been missed by China's state-run news agency Xinhua.

The Post also neglects to mention the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, which specifically states:

All Parties must pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The treaty went into effect in March of 1970. Thirty-Six years later one of the drafting parties of the treaty is working on a new arsenal of Nuclear Weapons. Does that seems like a good faith pursuit of "general and complete disarmament" to you?

Iran's Nuclear Weapons

I made the mistake of watching CNN the other day and had the pleasure of getting to see Larry King lie repeatedly into the camera. It is possible, of course, that he believed the lies he was telling, but that does not make them true.

He kept referring, as most American journalists do, to "Iran's Nuclear Weapons" or "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program."

What needs to be noted is that, based on the evidence provided, Iran does not have a Nuclear weapons program. The IAEA's reports on the subject outline the fact that "there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program" however "outstanding questions" remain. Suspension of Uranium Enrichment is intended to "build confidence in the international community," and clearing up the outstanding questions (rather than suspension of enrichment) is the real issue, contrary to the assertions of the western media.

We should also note that a few months ago Iran offered the IAEA full access to all of Iran's nuclear sites and suspected nuclear sites. This offer was flatly rejected by America's Condeleeza Rice, speaking on behalf of a Security Council Veto holding state. However, this offer was basically what is being demanded of Iran right now by the Security Council (aside from the manufactured issue of Suspension) in their recent resolution on Iran.

The resolution by the Security council refers to a document released by the IAEA board of Governers from February 8, 2006, numbered Gov/2006/14. That IAEA resolution states "that Article IV of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
stipulates that nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the Treaty," and each IAEA report (covered extensively in this blog) since then has reiterated the fact that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

It will be difficult for the Security Council to agree on any kind of sanctions what with the fact that Iran's right to develop enriched Uranium and Nuclear Power is protected by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, and there is no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran.

Somehow, however, the US media and US public (including such liberal comedians as George Carlin, who on the Jay Leno show some weeks back stated bluntly that "now Iran has The Bomb") are convinced that Iran either has a Nuclear Weapons program, or has a Nuclear Bomb already.

Again, people are being too easily misled. Perhaps they don't realise that, instead of just believing what their Lying News Agencies tell them, they could check the firsthand sources instead, such as the IAEA News Center, Focus: Iran web page.

Misneach Stories blog new post today:
The Next 9/11: coming soon.
"I can still remember the morning of September 11, 2001, as if it were yesterday..."
...it continues.
WARNING: the post contains graphic imagery.
The main topic is why American foreign policy is creating an atmosphere in the world that will ensure that they will face additional terrorist attacks. This subject greatly upsets me, because I feel that it should be the job of the government to protect its citizens as part of serving them and doing what is best for the nation as a whole. I also feel the the current U.S. regime has disrespected the memories of the innocent civilians lost on September 11 by a) using their deaths as an excuse to invade Iraq, b) responding to their deaths by bringing about more bloodshed, and c) ensuring that such an atrocity will happen again by pursuing policies that engender rage and resentment towards America and towards the west in general. This includes Europe as well, in addition to other America-friendly countries that haven't had the courage to stand up and say that Americas policies are wrong, and work to bring an end to them and see that the perpetrators of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity are brought to justice.



Also, this week (as I discussed previously about the SCO and Iran) the Iranian President was welcomed in China. This is in line with the closer ties between Iran and China (and Russia) I have discussed on numerous occasions in this blog.

On that subject, another intelligent take on the issue:
Awakening of a Giant
from Bottle Message™ blog at Yahoo 360.

Playing Chess with Iran
from TomDispatch blog.
-------

Something mentioned as a side-note in an article in the Tehran Times is an important aspect of this discussion that's not being covered.

Iran should try to balance nuclear offer
Tehran Times Political Desk

We support Iran's position on the peaceful use of atomic energy because this right is enshrined in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said.
"This right exists for all Arab and non-Arab countries which have signed the NPT and wish to achieve progress," Mussa added.
But he stressed the region was not in need of a military nuclear program. "This applies to Iran and Israel and others," Mussa said.

Everyone involved, from East to West, seems to be in agreement on one key issue: Iran should not have Nuclear Weapons. China, Russia, France, Germany, the U.S., and even Iran herself all agree that Nuclear Weapons are not something that it would be in the best interests of the world for Iran to possess.

This is understandable, and rational, and legal based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is also in line with UN Security Council Resolution 687, Article 14, which outlines "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missles for their delivery."

Based on current intelligence data, the only country in the area of the Middle East, West Asia (up to Afghanistan) and North Africa that possesses Nuclear Weapons is Israel. While they are non-signatories to the NPT, and as such their actions (at least in this one specific instance, we can revisit the ICJ wall ruling or UN General Assembly resolutions, or the Geneva Accords, or the Nuremberg Tribunal's precedents another time) are in line with their international obligations. However, the aim of resolution 687 was a very understandable one: due to the constant state of conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel being armed with 200 Nuclear Weapons is a far more dangerous issue than Iran enriching a very small percentage of the amount of nuclear material required to build one bomb.

If we are going to hold Iran to the understandable standard of maintaining their abstinence from Nuclear Weapons, why must we not demand the same from their regional comrade Israel?

--------
Sourcing:
CNS: Middle East WMDs: Israel

Russian Intelligence Estimate on Nuclear Weapons 1995

Ha'aretz July 2000 article on Israel's Nuclear Weapons Program
--------
Loads more news sources than you're used to at Misneach Homepage News

Iran vs. Israel

It is quite often pointed out that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad is viewed as the following, in washington:
"Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler"
They also make the erroneous claim that the IAEA has determined that Iran is actively seeking to build a Nuclear Bomb (that is COMPLETELY FALSE, man do I hate it when they lie to me).
Most troubling for me is the fact that people actually believe all of these claims. To those people I say this:

Wow, you certainly believe the propaganda that they feed you. I wonder if you see the lack of difference between your acceptance of official views as truth (without thinking critically or logically) and the way the German people accepted the Third Reich's official views as truth in the 1930s. I find it amusing that, in 1991, there was a huge outcry against Saddam that he was Hitler (incited by Bush I). Now, in 2006, the current target is Iran, and as such it's Pres Mahmoud that is the new Hitler (incited by Bush II). I think if that evil name keeps getting trown around every time the government wants to go after someone, it will eventually lose its meaning and it's true significance. I think that would be a great disservice to all those who lost their lives under his leadership. As far as Pres Mahmoud's anti-israeli views, you need to bear in mind that his rhetoric is always directed specifically at the Nation of Israel, and at radical Zionist elements (who advocate the removal of all Arabs from "the holy land" with force, if necessary; you may remember the removal of a specific race or nationality from your studies of WWII, with the well documented consequences), but not at all followers of Judaism. Is his anger at Israel so difficult to understand for someone who knows anything about the current situation in the middle east? I think not. While the American media (indeed most western media and a large percentage of other world media) tends to focus more on Israeli victims of Palestinian violence than on Palestinian victims. Perhaps I should point out to you, as you don't seem to know this, that the Civilian Death Toll in the Palestine/Israel conflict is very much lopsided, specifically that for every 1 Israeli that has been lost, 4 Palestinians have been lost. I would recommend you look into the civilian death tolls of IDF raids before you get so defensive of Israel. The fact is that this 4-1 ratio is actually far more even than the ratio during the 1980s and 90s, when TWENTY palestinians died for every 1 israeli that was lost. Again I ask you, is a pervailing Arab anger with Israel really so hard to understand? Just to give one example, just this weekend the IDF launched missles from an Apache helicopter at a suspected militant leader in Palestine, as he was driving down the street in the middle of a civilian area. It seems that this man was hit, and killed, but in the process so were 2 innocent women and a 4 year old boy. This kind of "collateral damage" is the norm as far as IDF raids in Palestinian territories are concerned. Again I ask you: is an anger towards Israel really so hard to understand?

I'm not even going to get into the Humanitarian Catastrophe that is Palestine, due to an IDF stranglehold on the region and a systematic destruction of all of their indegenous crops, because discussing it just makes me more upset.

It really, really surprises me that in this day and age of supposed enlightenment people are so gullible when it comes to official propaganda.
---------------
On Iran, the full text of the recent letter sent from President Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad of Iran to President Bush is available here.

War Mongering America

Condoleeza Rice has absolutely no credibility in the International Community. If this is the first time you've heard this, then I'm sorry, but you had to find out sometime. Her recent statements to the effect that Iran is "playing games" by OFFERING TO ALLOW CONTINUED IAEA INSPECTIONS is a transparent attempt to push the confrontation in the Diplomatic community into the realm of warfare. Her threats of putting pressure on Iran "outside of the U.N." or moving to a Chapter 7 resolution by the Security Council (she's just re-iterating what the US Ambassador to the U.N. said on friday) are rediculous and only tarnish the already pathetic reputation of the United States. Let me explain.

To refer back to a previous post of mine that discussed this particular issue, I have previously noted that the only intent of the Security Council with regards to the Iran issue before it was "unresolved questions" and that Iran needed to be more transparent in their dealings with the international community regarding their Nuclear ambitions. THAT IS THE ONLY PART OF THIS THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AGREES UPON, regardless of the spin you may hear from such news agencies as ABC (always bush's constituents). France has not sided with the U.S. regarding the "all options are on the table" nonsense or any of the rest of it, but the media is still counting them as in America's corner no matter what comes up. However, the most recent press conference with the French Ambassador to the UN stressed that all governments must work together for a diplomatic solution, and that if ALL governments don't agree on the issue then there is no issue. His exact words:

"[On Iran Mr. Ambassador, are you now close to putting something forward on a chapter 7 resolution? Does the (Iranian) announcement yesterday change the dynamics in the Council? ]
We must first wait for the discussions between the capitals before we can look at it here among ambassadors. We are now in a phase of discussions between capitals.
[But are you going towards a chapter 7 resolution right now?] As far as France is concerned, we’ve never had any problem with such a proposal. It is our position, but it has to be shared by the others."

IT HAS TO BE SHARED BY THE OTHERS. The others=China and Russia (HUGE TRADING PARTNERS WITH THE EU). China and Russia, you may recall, are also strong trading partners with Iran. The american media viewpoint that there is some kind of agreement between France and America on the "all options are on the table" stance is completely baseless.

Condi's blatant attempt to push the situation to the next level becomes painfully obvious upon review of the events that led up to it.

• The IAEA (in march) released a report on Iran's nuclear program that stated in no uncertain terms that there was NO EVIDENCE of the diversion of Nuclear materials to any kind of weapons program, but that raised concerns about the fact that there were still some gaps in their knowledge of the atomic situation in Iran.
• The March President of the U.N. Security Council released a decree that the IAEA was to look in to Iran's nuclear program for the purpose of "building confidence in the international community" that their Nuclear program was for peaceful civilian uses. The decree also called on Iran to halt their enrichment program FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES TO BE PUT IN TO PLACE, such as "greater transparency" in their intentions and in their actions.
• Iran announces that they have successfully enriched uranium (and they specifically noted that it was specifically) for the purpose of producing nuclear power, a concept that the UN Security council president had specifically stated (in the same decree discussed above) was well within the realm of acceptability as far as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty was concerned, and thusly well within the purvue of UN Member States.
• The IAEA releases their report regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and the report specifically states that Iran had continued their enrichment activities (which was already public knowledge due to statements from Tehran) which the Security Council march president had asked them to suspend ONLY FOR AS LONG AS THE IAEA WAS STILL DOING THEIR RESEARCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, but the report states that Iranian Nuclear weapons intentions WAS NOT A CONCLUSION THAT COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE.
• Iran states that they would be more than happy to allow "snap" inspections of their Nuclear sites by the IAEA, but ONLY IF the UN did not start taking direct sanction or military action against them for pursuing what they have the legal right to pursue: a civilian Nuclear Power program.
• Condeleeza Rice flatly rejects their offer (even though it is EXACTLY what was requested of Iran by the UN in march)

If you look at this chain of events objectively and with your information drawn from the first hand sources, such as the UN or the IAEA, then it becomes painfully obvious that Iran has complied specifically with everything that has been asked of them (to the letter). Yet america continues to try to goad them into a fight.

America is well aware that if they are successful in pushing through a Chapter 7 resolution by the security council that could lead to imposing sanctions on Iran, they will most likely follow through on their threat to discontinue cooperation with the IAEA and withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, because as they so aptly pointed out, they have been cooperating up until this point and it has gotten them nowhere. What the U.S. seems to be failing to recognize (although this point is well hidden by the Western Media so most casual observers do not recognize it either) is that any kind of attack on Iran (sanctions, military, etc.) is (as Iran continually points out) not in anyone's best interests, but those who would suffer the most from it (as Iran keeps pointing out) are actually those in America. Again, let me repeat: an attack on Iran is counterproductive to American interests, economically, politically, and with regards to safety. Again, I must explain.

First of all, everyone in America is bitching and moaning these days about the price of gasoline (at record highs in many parts of the states). Sanctions on Iran are likely to drive the price of gasoline (petrol) up yet again, as the current price-highs are based primarily on the fact that everyone is worried about supplies from Iran (the worlds 4th largest producer of crude oil). What most americans don't seem to grasp is that these same gasoline prices affect the PRICE OF EVERYTHING in america. All goods sold have to get to their selling point somehow, that somehow is through oil-powered vehicles. If it costs more for their goods to get to supermarket shelves, then the products themselves are going to cost more to maintain profit margins. Simple capitalism. Attacking a huge supplier of oil will push oil futures through the roof (bloomberg.com recently reported that Oil prices are likely to continue their rise, right up to nearly 100 dollars a barrel; at the moment they're about 72 dollars, and the price at the pump is 3.00doll's a gallon. If the price goes up for crude by another 40%, then, well, you can do the math). But that's not even the greatest of America's concerns.

More worrysome to the American Taxpayer should be the fact that this war is not a winnable one (in the classic american definition of the term) for America. First of all, the U.S. has proven their ineptness militarily in Iraq (and even Afghanistan) through their failure to control what they claim to be their main danger: terrorism. They turned Iraq from a harmless and defenseless country (STILL WAITIN' on the WMDs they claimed were there...) into the largest recruitment pool for Al-Qaida in the world. You need only check the news on Iraq to see how the "coalition" forces are completely unable to control the situation. And Iraq's military was extremely weak, and the average soldier in that army was a conscript (average citizen given a gun and told they must go fight, they had no choice). Iran's military is not weak. If America cannot control Iraq (they are STILL CLAIMING THAT REMNANTS OF SADDAMS REPUBLICAN GUARD ARE FIGHTING THE COALITION TROOPS, and that's their excuse for why they can't get the security situation under control) after 3 years, and Iraq's military was tremendously weak, they don't have a hope in hell of defeating Iran.

As far as how effective a military attack on Iran would be at actually halting Iran's nuclear program, in the words of Iran's top security official:
"It will have no effect on our nuclear programme. They say they will bomb us, but where do they want to bomb? We already have the know-how."
In fact, attacking Iran directly with military force will most likely only solidify the public opinion in Iran that their Nuclear program is a matter of national pride, and that it is important for their very national character.

Perhaps more importantly, (you should pay attention to this one) an attack on Iran is an attack on China, Russia, India, and Pakistan.

As I have discussed in previous posts (such as "lies, nuclear chess, and george orwell" and "conspicuously absent from western media") just last month Iran was accepted as a full member into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, an intergovernmental energy/security organisation whose founding members include China and Russia. Everyone has to be well aware by this point that Iran exports the vast majority of their oil to china, china exports a large amount of military equipment to Iran, and that Iran's nuclear program was built and is being partially operated by Russia.
If I may draw your attention to an article posted recently regarding a role playing scenario acted out at an American university by university students:
"When it became clear that an American attack was imminent, the Russian team announced an extraordinary measure: the deployment of Russian troops to strategic sites in Iran"
It goes on to conclude that if that was the logical course of action for American University students, then obviously (former KGB officer) Vladimir Putin may contemplate the same. As I have discussed before, both China and Russia have important economic interests in Iran, and I do believe that they (based on their party platforms and rhetoric) would be inclined to protect their interests.
Which brings us back to the concept of sanctions, as I mentioned earlier. Ms. (it's a wonder she isn't married, isn't it?) Rice's recent rejection of the most logical course of action to solve this issue and her reiteration of the American demand for sanctions against Iran is a moronic idea. The administration in washington is also trying to assert that if the UN doesn't support sanctions that the UN is not fullfilling it's responsibility (from the administration's standpoint, apparently, that is to serve the U.S.'s interests at all times, based on the fact [as pointed out in the US UN Ambassador's friday news conference about the IAEA findings by a reporter from "News Weekly"] that the UN was "irrelevant" as far as America attacking Iraq, in violation of article 51 of the UN charter, and now the US is saying that they will again prove their irrelevance if they don't support sanctions, but yet are still trying to say that one of the dangerous aspects of Iran is that they are not living up to their responsibilities as a UN member [which, as illustrated above, is actually completely untrue] by acting in a manner that is in violation of the US interpretation of the wishes of the Security council) in yet another attempt to circumvent the actual authority of the U.N., and hopefully it's an attempt that will eventually be noticed in the International press and exposed for what it is. It seems that the U.S. is trying to set the situation up so that they can again claim the "irrelevance" of the U.N. and act unilaterally to again try to secure global hegemony. The likelyhood of sanctions as an ACTUAL solution to the problem is neglegable.
First of all, (as many media sources around the globe have pointed out) Russia and China both have veto power in the UN Security Council, and they are not going to allow tough economic sanctions against one of their close economic partners. Secondly, (as mentioned above) France only supports moving towards chapter 7 and pressing for sanctions if ALL INTERNATION BODIES AGREE that this is the proper course of action. The western media should take note of this and (AGAIN) stop their inaccurate reporting of the situation: If all parties don't agree on sanctions, France does not support sanctions. Therefore France cannot continue to be grouped in as supporting America on this issue. Thirdly, as Colin Powell (former holder of Condi's position) recently pointed out, "Iran seems to "have pretty much decided they can accept whatever sanctions are coming their way."" which is very much in contrast to Condi's position that sanctions are the most intelligent course of action.
Therefore, sanctions obviously (as even C.P. is admitting) wouldn't have the effect of sorting out the situation. Nor would military action, as explained above. The only intelligent option left open to America is to return to the negotiating table, accept Iran's concession of allowing the IAEA free reign in Iran, and stop their war mongering. But how often does America EVER make the intelligent decision.

Iran

Today, "Iran's flinty President" (thank you China State News Agency) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised the world that Iran would not abandon it's Nuclear project. I would like to note, for the record, that this is WELL in line with the UN Security Council's requirements (although I'm SURE that his statement will be spun in the western media, just you wait) as stated by the Security Council President himself when he asked the IAEA to look in to Iran's Nuclear ambitions.

"“The Security Council reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and recalls the right of States Party, in conformity with articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."

Iran has the legal right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, and there is absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that their nuclear program is ANYTHING BUT PEACEFUL. THE ONLY THING that the international community agrees on in this matter is that Iran needs to be forthcoming and transparent in their intentions and allow IAEA inspectors to do their work to ensure the civilian nature of their nuclear program. Regardless of the western media spin on the story, the U.S. posturing (extensively covered in the western media), and the implications for peace, america has no case. It is interesting to note that they have dredged up the WMD claim (remember that from Iraq? I think they're still looking for them, I heard they made a wrong turn at Mosul and were last heard from somewhere in the Himalayas) against Iran, I've highlighted the U.S. State Department statement on the matter below in my previous "Iran" Post. It's all there in black and white, I can't help but believe that those in charge in washington suffer from just as many psychological afflictions as Bin Ladin, but I don't have my psychology PHD yet so I can't really say for sure.

IRAN, U.S. LIES, IDIOTS AT CNN, WMD

Sadly the IAEA report on Iran that was released today was realeased ONLY to Diplomats of the countries on the Security Council, and is not available to the public. We can, however, look towards the U.S. Ambassador's own statement on the report after he had seen it, wherein he stated, about the assertion by the U.S. that Iran's program is for weapons, the report "doesn't make any conclusions in that regard."
In it's own push to remind the world that we should all fear Iran, the U.S. State Department released their own report today (to coincide with the IAEA's statements) about the "State Sponsors of Terror," which somehow NEVER includes the United States, even though America fits the American definition of "state sponsor of terror."

[To step away from Iran to talk about the U.S. as the worlds leading "State sponsor of terror," lets look at the words of President Bush:
"If you harbor terrorists, you are [a] terrorist. If you aid and abet terrorists, you're a terrorist, and will be treated like one."
Just to mention a couple of the terrorists "harbored" in America today (not including the actions of the american military and how they fit the definition of "terrorism," as that would take too long and I don't have the patience), we should really mention: (1)Luis Posada Carilles (Miami), (2)Jorge Mas Canosa (Miami), (3)Emmanuel Constant (New York), etc.
(1) Nicaragua, (2) Cuba, and (3) Haiti should all (theoretically) be flattening America with carpet-bombing as we speak, but enough about that.]


Today's report on "State Sponsors of Terror" by the State Department was accepted as Fact by countless "news" organisations, including CNN Europe, who seem to have never heard of the U.S. State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, Bureau of International Information Programs (quote from their site: "IIP informs, engages, and influences international audiences about U.S. policy and society to advance America's interests"), Advisory Commision on Public Diplomacy, or any of the other countless Executive Branch departments that specialize in providing propaganda to the people of the world. So anyway, this piece of [insert appropriate noun here] was presented today as honest Fact on CNN, coinciding with the (non-public) release of the IAEA's findings on the Iranian Nuclear Program.
The U.S. would like the world to know:

"Iran remained the leading state sponsor of terror." (they were last year as well apparently? Ok, if that's what you believe, then fine). What are the specific reasons given for why Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror? As follows: Iran's continued support for terror groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the PLO, including support through rhetoric, and providing them with funding and weapons. "Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaida members it detained in 2003." Bringing to justice is defined as "transfer custody of detainees... to third countries for interrigation and/or trial." "Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the transitional government and the Multi-National Forces in Iraq." I don't honestly see how this could possibly put Iran ahead of America as the Leading State Sponsor of Terror. First of all, the actions of Hizbollah, Hamas, AAMB and the PLO all fall within the confines of International Law as it relates to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and a state or region's ability to protect its land and its people from a foreign invasion force, that invasion force namely being the Israeli Defence forces regarding their occupation of what is by law land that belongs to Lebanon and Palestine. Therefore, supporting them is actually more in line with international law than the support that France gave to the rebels in the English Colonies during the time of the "American Revolution" and is not an action that could be defined as "sponsoring terror" in the honest definition of the phrase. What is in violation of international law is the continuing incursions by the IDF into foreign territory, and they are using U.S. supplied Apache helicopter gunships and U.S. supplied bulldozers, which is the same kind of thing that the U.S. is trying to pin on Iran. In psychology we call that "displacement." America's definition of "bringing to justice" is that these Al-Qaida suspects are to be turned over to the U.S. for interrogation. However, the U.S. interrogation practices are in violation of international law as it relates to the Humane Treatment of Prisoners, so for Iran to turn over these suspects to the U.S. (the third party, or "third country" as phrased in this report) would be for them to willingly aid in the violation of International Law and treaties. So their actions in attempting to stymie additional violations of international law are apparently "terrorist" actions. Right. Iran's policies in Iraq "appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the Multi-National Forces." And, of course, the puppet "transitional" government put in to place by these multi national forces. So, Iran's policies in an invaded territory are inconsistant with those of the people who violated international law (Article 51, U.N. Charter, again) when they invaded the country anyway? And that makes Iran the sponsors of terrorism? I don't see how ANY of these accusations are supported by ANY real evidence WHATSOEVER, but yet it's all accepted as truth by "journalists" who are supposed to be "unbiased" and "objective" but yet have somehow lost the ability to reason for themselves. The report is topped off with a great statement trying to pin WMD's on Iran as well (it worked so well in Iraq, lets try it on Iran!): "State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD threat." How? "A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organisation to aquire advanced WMD." Ok, but where did you come up with the factual basis for Iran having ANY WMD's AT ALL? "Nations that fail to live up to international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism." So if a nation fails to live up to its international obligations, then they must have WMDs that they're going to give to terrorists. What defines failure to live up to international obligations? Maybe attacking a defenseless country on the grounds that it may possibly somehow in the future develop WMDs or could possibly have WMDs or would like to know where to get WMDs, or what? We heard this about Iraq, and we're still waiting for these WMDs to be found. Are you actually coming forward now to give evidence that Iran has some sort of WMDs? "Iran is capable of producing biological or chemical agents or weapons." WHAT?!?!?! "Iran could support terrorist organisations seeking to aquire WMD." WHAT?!?!?!?! ARE YOU MAKING BASELESS WMD ACCUSATIONS AGAIN?!?!? HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO FEED THE WORLD SHIT AND TELL EVERYONE ITS CHOCOLATE?!?! WHEN ARE YOU GONNA STOP WITH YOUR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE PARANOID OBSESSION WITH WMD?!?!?! ENOUGH ALREADY, GET A FUCKING SHRINK!!!!!!!

NOT ONCE in this WHOLE REPORT did they produce ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran has ANY sort of WMD program, but yet they're still mentioning it, trying to plant the seed. And even CNN buys this shit hook line and sinker.

[The report also made mention of the fact that the "war on terror" is probably going to last for a very very long time. If anyone who may be reading this has not read the novel 1984 by George Orwell, you would be well served to give it a read.]

(If you don't believe me that I have accurately quoted the report, you may see for yourself the section of the Report on Iran, and the Full Report, both of which are in .PDF format and available on the U.S. State Department website.)

Another small bit mentioned in the terror sponsor state report was how Iran refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions to halt Uranium Enrichment, which makes them a nation that will "fail to live up to international obligations." This issue is far simpler than it's being made out to be, and one of the things making it much more complicated in the news is, as usual, INACCURATE REPORTING.

First of all, if you listen to CNN you would be likely to believe that there was a UN Security Council Resolution 30 days ago that demanded that Iran halt all enrichment activity or be held in violation of international law. As are most things reported in the "news" these days, that is simply not true. What happened 30 days ago was in fact a Presidential Statement calling on the IAEA to look in to unresolved questions regarding Iran's Nuclear Program. The statement was basically this:

“The Security Council calls upon Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, notably in the first operative paragraph of its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions, and underlines, in this regard, the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA."

BUILD CONFIDENCE. The idea was that Iran was to stop what they were doing for the sake of BUILDING CONFIDENCE in their intentions of having a strictly peaceful nuclear program. This statement by the President of the Security Council for March was in response to a report by the IAEA from earlier that month, which concluded:

"The Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran´s nuclear programme.
For confidence to be built in the peaceful nature of Iran´s programme, Iran should do its utmost to provide maximum transparency and build confidence. Only through clarification of all questions relevant to Iran´s past programme and through confidence building measures can confidence about Iran´s current nuclear activities be restored. This is clearly in the interest both of Iran and of the international community."

If I may bring your attention back to the beginning of the second paragraph: "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." They only wanted "confidence to be built." And this was all pre-SCO-Membership for Iran (as discussed in my "Conspicuously Absent from Western Media" entry) which means that China and Iran and Russia are all very close trading partners and security partners now, as they weren't when this whole posturing began by the U.S. government to try to drum up support for ANOTHER WAR to make americans feel confident in their Bullies in Office come November Congressional Midterm Elections.

N. Korea and America the Bully

While searching the United Nations homepage scouring the internet for first hand resources and documentation regarding the current "Nuclear Situation" in Iran (to be discussed in greater detail in the next post), I came across the following statement by the IAEA:

"Implementation of Safeguards in the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
Since the end of 2002, when at the request of the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK) the Agency´s verification activities were terminated, the Agency has been unable to verify the DPRK´s nuclear activities.
As I have reported before, the Agency stands ready to work with the DPRK - and other concerned parties - towards a comprehensive solution that addresses the security and other needs of the DPRK, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the needs of the international community to ensure that all nuclear activities in the DPRK are exclusively for peaceful purposes."

Then was their findings on Iran:

"Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran
The report on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran is before you. As you are aware, the Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE IAEA REGARDING IRAN, MADE IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR. But that's not the point of this particular blog entry. It is important to note that, while Iran is being cooperative with the IAEA, North Korea is not. Not at all, in fact the inspectors have been thrown out of their country and are not invited to return. So why is America going after Iran (who's not really doing anything wrong, but we'll discuss that in the next post) and not North Korea?
[(Other than to steal China's oil I mean)]

The NEXT funny bit I found was the HOMEPAGE of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is so anti-American that one can't help but smile or laugh (depending on your perspective). It calls Americans "imperialist," states bluntly that the U.S.A. has no interest in peace, they are "racist" and "separatist" and lie when they claim to be defenders of freedom. The homepage of N.Korea says ALL OF THIS about America, and yet it's Iran that the U.S. is going after, even though it's painfully obvious that with N.Korea's refusal to cooperate with the IAEA they are obviously the more out of line of the 2 countries, and they use a far more harsh rhetoric than the President of Iran has. Why?

THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SCHOOLYARD BULLY. They went after Iraq because it was weak, they are going after Iran because they feel it is weak (it is, in point of fact, actually NOT. At All.), but they are scared of North Korea, so North Korea doesn't even get mentioned, regardless of the fact that their lack of cooperation with the UN's IAEA is far more dangerous than that of Iran. Just a thought.
The homepage of DPRK linked to through the title is brilliant though. Thought you'd like to know. Back with IRAN, CNN, U.S. PROPAGANDA, and more soon.