Tracking events related to Iran....

[LadyMod at scam.com]

This is getting interesting. We might as well start tracking the next war on the Bush agenda. Hey Smurf, find me some more.


Russia, China have blocked tough Iran sanctions - US (http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL01320554.html)
Thu 1 Nov 2007, 14:02 GMT
By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA, Nov 1 (Reuters) - The United States said on Thursday Russia and China had been blocking tough U.N. sanctions against Iran for months and pledged a drive to impose them if Iran did not halt nuclear activity within two weeks.

Iran's president said he was "not worried at all" about broader economic sanctions, dismissing them as ineffective.



Belligerent Iran heats up U.S. presidential politics (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NEWS07/711010379/1009)
Some candidates hint at new war to end nuclear threat
November 1, 2007
BY JOHN YAUKEY
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- Almost 30 years after the Iranian hostage crisis cost then-President Jimmy Carter a second term, the Islamic republic is back at the forefront of American politics, stirring the 2008 U.S. presidential race with its worrisome nuclear research and its role in Iraq.

Republicans have taken some of their boldest foreign policy positions on Iran, raising the possibility of military action -- possibly a third war against an Islamic nation -- to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.



Attacking Iran for Israel? (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66607/)
By Ray McGovern, Consortium News. Posted November 1, 2007.

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep it that way, and they want the U.S. to help.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target. Her claim last week that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world" is simply too much of a stretch.

To gauge someone's reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice's credibility suffers in comparison with Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Basing his judgment on the findings of IAEA inspectors in Iran, ElBaradei reports that there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program there.

If this sounds familiar, it is in fact déjà vu. ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert, "I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong."

Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, U.S. intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, but, alas, in vain. Burned by the bogus "proof" adduced for Iraq -- the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes -- the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related "evidence." Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?" There is a simpler answer.

Cat out of the bag

The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel. Heavy on the chutzpah, he then served gratuitous notice on Washington that countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude, "come January '09, they have it their own way."

....

[Smurf-Herder]

I've been following this closely, and you really have to keep tabs on Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas as well, to get the full picture. It's all interconnected, including Iraq, Turkey, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, etc.

You really can't just look up stories on Iran to understand how everything is going down.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I've been following this closely, and you really have to keep tabs on Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas as well, to get the full picture. It's all interconnected, including Iraq, Turkey, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, etc.

You really can't just look up stories on Iran to understand how everything is going down.


Where do you find all these stories then to follow it? Separate searches or do you have one really good central outlet?


LM

[Moby]

I've been following this closely, and you really have to keep tabs on Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas as well, to get the full picture. It's all interconnected, including Iraq, Turkey, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, etc.

You really can't just look up stories on Iran to understand how everything is going down.
Please enlighten us.

I've always felt that Dubya will follow his daddy's foot steps and start military conflicts that can't be won right before he leaves office. Iran is the perfect conflict to start. Drop a few bombs and then walk away and leave it to Hillary to sort out.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Please enlighten us.

I've always felt that Dubya will follow his daddy's foot steps and start military conflicts that can't be won right before he leaves office. Iran is the perfect conflict to start. Drop a few bombs and then walk away and leave it to Hillary to sort out.


Like Father, Like Son.

Let's hope that in some ways it will be a case of Like Husband, Like Wife. But only in the good ways.


Though, Paul Harvey says that Barack OBama is getting most of the best press. Hillary is just getting the most press. LOL.


Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

Where do you find all these stories then to follow it? Separate searches or do you have one really good central outlet?


LM

You have to take the time to do separate searches. And it does take time.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

You have to take the time to do separate searches. And it does take time.


Only a few minutes each. You named how many countries? 45 minutes tops.


Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

Here's some new material. Some stories are a old, but important in context:

Saudi offers deal to end Iran nuclear stand-off
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2787799.ece

Iran stakes claim to Bahrain: Public seeks 'reunification . . .with its motherland'
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iran_07_13.asp

Bahrain sets up missile shield - fear of war in Gulf region
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/118666.html

Mass evacuation plans drawn up
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=198373&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=30225

Syrian Civil Defense Services Placed on the Ready
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4665

Shia Islamic satellite set for liftoff on ICBM cloaked as space booster
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070127-iran-space.htm

Iran Launches First Space Rocket
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/02/d566ca81-9893-427b-921d-2a4d662eb31d.html

New Iran Missiles Can Hit Europe
http://www.nysun.com/article/31800

Deployment of B-2 Spirit bombers raises stakes in Northeast Asia
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/242434.html

[Smurf-Herder]

Only a few minutes each. You named how many countries? 45 minutes tops.


Lady Mod

Sometimes a search on one thing leads to something you didn't expect to see, that leads you down another path. You could be finding things for hours. You don't just search the countries. Sometimes combined countries in a search, sometimes in combination with weapons systems or deployments, sometimes people, sometimes random searches on key words in combination with other terms. Whatever you have time for and whatever you have a sense for, depending on what you may find in any given search..

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Sometimes a search on one thing leads to something you didn't expect to see, that leads you down another path. You could be finding things for hours. You don't just search the countries. Sometimes combined countries in a search, sometimes in combination with weapons systems or deployments, sometimes people, sometimes random searches on key words in combination with other terms. Whatever you have time for and whatever you have a sense for, depending on what you may find in any given search..

I just want the latest news, not the entire histories. LOL.


Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

I just want the latest news, not the entire histories. LOL.


Lady Mod

It's important to have an understanding of what else is going on when you hear something new. Otherwise something important might be overlooked as being trivial.

I didn't know it was an attention span issue.

If you just want sensational headlines, then I'll just let you feel your way around in the darkess.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

It's important to have an understanding of what else is going on when you hear something new. Otherwise something important might be overlooked as being trivial.

I didn't know it was an attention span issue.

If you just want sensational headlines, then I'll just let you feel your way around in the darkess.


Attention span is not the problem. Time is. I read fast, and type faster. But I only have just so much time to invest.

Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

Attention span is not the problem. Time is. I read fast, and type faster. But I only have just so much time to invest.

Lady Mod

Well then, allow me at times to fill in the gaps. Breaking news doesn't always make sense, unless you know the history behind a given event.

I don't read or type fast. I take my time, to try and fully comprehend all the interconnected implications.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Well then, allow me at times to fill in the gaps. Breaking news doesn't always make sense, unless you know the history behind a given event.

I don't read or type fast. I take my time, to try and fully comprehend all the interconnected implications.

I believe I was?

.

[Smurf-Herder]

I believe I was?

.

Just making a point for my posting older stories sometimes.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Just making a point for my posting older stories sometimes.

Ahhh, alrighty then. :D

[Smurf-Herder]

World powers push ahead with Iran sanctions
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-11-02T203718Z_01_L30131658_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-NUCLEAR-COL.XML

U.S. military sees decline in Iran-linked bombs in Iraq
Gates says it's too early to tell if the flow has been significantly cut
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5266808.html

[Yirmeyahu]

I've written quite a bit about Iran. My own analysis of the situation is here:

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=2292

I've written a number of other articles on Iran. This one deals particularly with US policy and attitudes towards Iran.

[Smurf-Herder]

I've written quite a bit about Iran. My own analysis of the situation is here:

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=2292

I've written a number of other articles on Iran. This one deals particularly with US policy and attitudes towards Iran.

I read your argument.

So tell me, what are your views on the plans Iran has of a nuclear warhead and the 15 page document for fabricating the uraniun sphere for the nuclear core of a weapon, they received from AQ Kahn? And also their modification of their Shahab-3 missiles to a triconal nosecone design? And the IRGC being in charge of their nuclear program? And the Green Salt project?

From last year:

Iran Said to Have Nuclear Warhead Plans
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8FG37780&show_article=1

"VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said in a report Tuesday that Iran obtained documents and drawings on the black market that serve no other purpose than to make an atomic warhead. Tehran warned of an "end of diplomacy" if plans to refer it to the U.N. Security Council are carried out."

"The four-page report also criticized Iran for refusing to provide interviews with at least one nuclear scientist linked to the military and dismissing requests for information on "tests related to high explosives and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could have a military nuclear dimension."

"The findings about the design obtained by Iran on the black market were contained in a confidential report for presentation to the 35- nation IAEA board and provided in full to The Associated Press."

"First mention of the documents linked to constructing a nuclear warhead was made late last year in a longer IAEA report. At that time, the agency said only that they showed how to cast "enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms."

In the brief report obtained Tuesday, however, the agency said bluntly that the 15 pages of text and drawings showing how to cast fissile uranium into metal were "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components."

Asked about the finding, a senior diplomat close to the IAEA declined to elaborate but emphasized that the documents had no other use. He demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential information.

The report said the documents were under agency seal, meaning that IAEA experts should be able to re-examine them, but "Iran has declined a request to provide the agency with a copy."

Then there was this, a year earlier in 2005:

Iran denies claims about nuclear plan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1641995,00.html

"Iran was under renewed pressure yesterday over its nuclear programme after reports that US officials had found information on a stolen laptop computer that they claimed proved Iran was attempting to develop a nuclear warhead.
American intelligence agents have briefed senior officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the alleged evidence contained on the computer, according to the New York Times. The agency is scheduled to meet in Vienna on Thursday week to consider referring the Iranian case to the UN security council."

"The laptop, said to have been obtained from a source inside Iran, contains more than 1,000 pages of computer simulations and accounts of experiments believed to be part of a long-term programme to design a nuclear warhead compatible with Iran's Shahab missile and capable of reaching Israel and other Middle Eastern countries.

The computer documents specified a blast of about 600 metres (2,000ft) above a target, considered to be the optimum height for a nuclear explosion."

[Smurf-Herder]

Here's everything on that from the New York Times, in 2006:

Iran's Civilian Nuclear Program May Link to Military, U.N. Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/international/middleeast/31cndiran.html?pagewanted=print

"VIENNA, Jan. 31 — The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has evidence that suggests links between Iran's ostensibly peaceful nuclear program and its military work on high explosives and missiles, according to a confidential agency report provided to member countries today.

The four-page report, which officials say was based at least in part on intelligence provided by the United States, refers to a secretive Iranian entity called the "Green Salt Project," which worked on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design. The combination suggests a "military-nuclear dimension," the report said, that if true would undercut Iran's claims that its nuclear program was solely aimed at producing electrical power.

The report will be debated by the 35 countries that make up the international agency's board when they meet in emergency session on Thursday to decide whether Iran should be reported to the United Nations Security Council for its nuclear activities.

The agency says it has repeatedly confronted Iran with the accusations, which Tehran dismissed as "baseless," adding that "it would provide further clarifications later," the report said. Iran also reiterated that all its nuclear projects were conducted under the authority of its national atomic energy agency and not the military.

More broadly, the report states that the country has not been fully cooperative on all of the outstanding nuclear issues that the agency has been raising questions for years and that formed the basis of a board resolution last fall, asserting that Iran was not complying with its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Green Salt Project derives its name from uranium tetrafluoride, known as Green Salt, which is an intermediate product in the conversion of uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride — a toxic gas that can undergo enrichment or purification into fuel for nuclear reactors or bombs.

The report suggests that the fuel project, the "high explosives" tests and the design of a "missile re-entry vehicle" would "appear to have administrative interconnections." It would seem to be the first time that the agency has publicly suggested that the fuel production — which Iran has said it purely for civilian purposes — was linked to its military programs.

The tests of high explosives are of particular concern: one of the key challenges in making a nuclear weapon is designing the ring of conventional explosives that can be used to compress the nuclear material, setting off a nuclear chain reaction.

It is highly unusual, Western experts said, for a group of uranium conversion experts ostensibly making fuel for nuclear reactors to also have administrative ties to people doing studies on explosives and re-entry vehicles, which is the technical name for missile warheads.

"The obvious technical connection is that these are all central elements of a program to develop nuclear weapons and delivery capability," said Per F. Peterson, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California at Berkeley.

The alleged bureaucratic linkage of the various efforts would make them highly suspicious, Dr. Peterson added, as each one separately could be viewed as potentially unrelated to nuclear arms.

While the Bush administration has long argued that Iran uses its civilian program to hide ambitions to build a nuclear weapon, the agency has always steered clear of that accusation. With today's report, it has for the first time provided evidence directly suggesting that at least some of Iran's activities point to a military project.

The Mujahedin-e Khalq, an Iranian resistance group that both the United States and the European Unions describe as a terrorist organization, has often drawn links among the Iranian military, the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Tehran's nuclear program, asserting that the separate groups were working together to gain the ability to build and deliver an atom bomb.

But Western experts said they knew of no instances in which the I.A.E.A. had pressed that accusation home. "We haven't heard this from the I.A.E.A. before," said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. "It's interesting that the I.A.E.A. is putting that level of credence into it. I don't believe there has previously been any I.A.E.A. reference to such interconnections."

Even though the report is confidential, copies began to surface in Vienna almost as soon as it was posted on a Web site available only to member countries of the I.A.E.A.

The Vienna-based international nuclear agency also said in its report that a 15-page document Iran had allowed it to read described procedures that would be useful only in making parts for nuclear weapons. The agency for the first time stated its own conclusions on the matter and did so quite bluntly, saying the document that Iran obtained from the black market "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components."

The I.A.E.A., in a report issued last November, made reference to suspicious documents that the nuclear black market had offered to Tehran. While making no reference to weaponry, the report indicated that the network had offered to help Iran shape uranium metal into "hemispherical forms," which Western arms experts at that time said suggested the making of nuclear bomb cores.

In the past, Iran had told the agency that the document was given to it — without its asking — by an international smuggling network that has been identified as run by the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and that it has not used the information for a weapons project."

[Smurf-Herder]

Hey, Yirmeyahu.

I want direct answers to my direct questions!

[Yirmeyahu]

So tell me, what are your views on the plans Iran has of a nuclear warhead and the 15 page document for fabricating the uraniun sphere for the nuclear core of a weapon, they received from AQ Kahn? And also their modification of their Shahab-3 missiles to a triconal nosecone design? And the IRGC being in charge of their nuclear program? And the Green Salt project?

My views are the same as the IAEA, that there are areas of concern where questions exist and that the inspections and verification process should be allowed to continue without interference either from Iran or any other country.

[Smurf-Herder]

My views are the same as the IAEA, that there are areas of concern where questions exist and that the inspections and verification process should be allowed to continue without interference either from Iran or any other country.

Everyone can agree with that statement.

But what are your personal views of the above "areas of concern" - and Iran's stalling and stonewalling on it all?

I mean, we're talking about plans for nuclear warheads directly from AQ Kahn here and missile nosecones being modified to be able to carry nukes; and that info comes directly from the IAEA. We've been saying Iran should cooperate for years now. But it doesn't make it happen, just by saying what should happen.

Don't you think the P5+1 agreement of 2006 was pretty much the fairest offer the the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and the EU could make in negotiations, to get them to cooperate?

[Yirmeyahu]

Everyone can agree with that statement.

Well, I hope so. It's a reasonable position.

But what are your personal views of the above "areas of concern" - and Iran's stalling and stonewalling on it all?

The view I gave is very much my personal view.

I mean, we're talking about plans for nuclear warheads directly from AQ Kahn here and missile nosecones being modified to be able to carry nukes; and that info comes directly from the IAEA. We've been saying Iran should cooperate for years now. But it doesn't make it happen, just by saying what should happen.

Very true. And just saying that Iran isn't cooperating doesn't make that so, either. The IAEA has repeatedly noted Iran's fulfillment of its treaty obligations. Where there has been controversy is with cooperation above and beyond Iran's treaty obligations, which is voluntary. It's on account of Iran backing away from voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment that two Security Council resolutions prejudicing Iran's right under the NPT treaty were passed.

Don't you think the P5+1 agreement of 2006 was pretty much the fairest offer the the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and the EU could make in negotiations, to get them to cooperate?

If you're referring to the demands placed upon Iran during its voluntary suspension under the Paris Agreement, no, absolutely not.

[Smurf-Herder]

Well, I hope so. It's a reasonable position.



The view I gave is very much my personal view.



Very true. And just saying that Iran isn't cooperating doesn't make that so, either. The IAEA has repeatedly noted Iran's fulfillment of its treaty obligations. Where there has been controversy is with cooperation above and beyond Iran's treaty obligations, which is voluntary. It's on account of Iran backing away from voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment that two Security Council resolutions prejudicing Iran's right under the NPT treaty were passed.



If you're referring to the demands placed upon Iran during its voluntary suspension under the Paris Agreement, no, absolutely not.

So basically, you're coping out on anything that relates to a second clandestine nuclear weapons program, because their cooperation on that is only voluntary.

I just wanted to see where you're head was at. Considering your angle of trying to present yourself as some kind of authority on the matter.

You redirect around the main critical issue, by draping the issue in legalities - like a lawyer from the first O.J. Simpson trial.

[Yirmeyahu]

So basically, you're coping out on anything that relates to a second clandestine nuclear weapons program, because their cooperation on that is only voluntary.

I don't understand your meaning. You asked for my view and I gave it to you. I don't think I was unclear about anything. Is there anything else you'd like to know?

I just wanted to see where you're head was at. Considering your angle of trying to present yourself as some kind of authority on the matter.

I don't recall ever presenting myself as "some kind of authority on the matter".

You redirect around the main critical issue, by draping the issue in legalities - like a lawyer from the first O.J. Simpson trial.

It is a legal matter to a very large extent. Do you think the NPT treaty is irrelevent to a discussion of Iran? How about relevent UN resolutions? Should we not discuss such things because to do so is to "drape the issue in legalities like a lawyer from the first O.J. Simpson trial"?

[Smurf-Herder]

I don't recall ever presenting myself as "some kind of authority on the matter".



Sorry. I got the impression from the look of your website that you were someone who presented themselves as having a greater insight than the rest of us for some reason. I was obviously wrong.

[Yirmeyahu]

If you feel that I have a greater insight than you in something, that is your own perception and nothing I've ever postulated or made claim to. I have my own thoughts and views, and I share them. Whether my own insights is greater than anyone else's is up to the individual to decide.

[Smurf-Herder]

If you feel that I have a greater insight than you in something, that is your own perception and nothing I've ever postulated or made claim to. I have my own thoughts and views, and I share them. Whether my own insights is greater than anyone else's is up to the individual to decide.

From what I see of your "views", you divest yourself of any personal responsibility in evaluating the evidence for yourself; and defer all judgement to the IAEA - which has been manipulated, been fooled and minimized findings in the past. That's why I say, you're coping out dealing with the fundamental issues; while making it a point of writing articles to influence others. In other words, you purposely gloss over the primary concerns, to turn this into a legal argument; that makes a good case - if people avoid dealing with the primary cause of concern.

[moonman]

From what I see of your "views", you divest yourself of any personal responsibility in evaluating the evidence for yourself; and defer all judgement to the IAEA - which has been manipulated, been fooled and minimized findings in the past. That's why I say, you're coping out dealing with the fundamental issues; while making it a point of writing articles to influence others. In other words, you purposely gloss over the primary concerns, to turn this into a legal argument; that makes a good case - if people avoid dealing with the primary cause of concern.

And you profer in the alternative the 'straight skinny' put out by Bush/Cheney? :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

And you profer in the alternative the 'straight skinny' put out by Bush/Cheney? :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

You know, I hate this Bullshit. I've been watching stories on Iran for 28 years. Pinning everything on only trusting whatever Bush says is a childish political tactic.

[Yirmeyahu]

From what I see of your "views", you divest yourself of any personal responsibility in evaluating the evidence for yourself; and defer all judgement to the IAEA - which has been manipulated, been fooled and minimized findings in the past. That's why I say, you're coping out dealing with the fundamental issues; while making it a point of writing articles to influence others. In other words, you purposely gloss over the primary concerns, to turn this into a legal argument; that makes a good case - if people avoid dealing with the primary cause of concern.

The primary concern with Iran is it's nuclear program. The piece in question is concerned primarily with Iran's nuclear program and US policy towards Iran with that regard.

Ergo, I've dealt very much directly with the central issue. If you find any error in fact or logic with what I've written, you're welcome to challenge me on it.

The legality of Iran's nuclear program was one aspect I covered in the article, but by no means the only aspect. I addressed the topic from many angles.

For all I can tell here, you're challenging me on stating that my position is the same as the IAEA, that there are areas of concern and questions that need answers.

If find my position reasonable and sound based on the facts, and you've given me no incentive to change my mind.

[Smurf-Herder]

The primary concern with Iran is it's nuclear program. The piece in question is concerned primarily with Iran's nuclear program and US policy towards Iran with that regard.

Ergo, I've dealt very much directly with the central issue. If you find any error in fact or logic with what I've written, you're welcome to challenge me on it.

The legality of Iran's nuclear program was one aspect I covered in the article, but by no means the only aspect. I addressed the topic from many angles.

For all I can tell here, you're challenging me on stating that my position is the same as the IAEA, that there are areas of concern and questions that need answers.

If find my position reasonable and sound based on the facts, and you've given me no incentive to change my mind.

My point is, the specifics of the concerns are the issue. This is playing merry-go-round, just saying basically whatever the IAEA says is your opinion. You have no personal views on the specifics?

Sorry man - But that is a cop-out. A total cop-out. You're evading answering the questions directly. You're just pawning off your ability to reason for yourself on the IAEA.

[Yirmeyahu]

You asked me what my position was on several matters of concern relating to Iran's nuclear program. I answered that my position was the same as the IAEA, that there were areas of concern and questions remaining to be answered and that inspections, monitoring, and verification should continue to ensure that Iran remains compliant with its obligations under the NPT treaty.

That is my personal view on each and every one of the specific areas of concern you mentioned. I don't know what more you want me to say about them.

[Smurf-Herder]

You asked me what my position was on several matters of concern relating to Iran's nuclear program. I answered that my position was the same as the IAEA, that there were areas of concern and questions remaining to be answered and that inspections, monitoring, and verification should continue to ensure that Iran remains compliant with its obligations under the NPT treaty.

That is my personal view on each and every one of the specific areas of concern you mentioned. I don't know what more you want me to say about them.

Exactly.

You can't event contemplate the details yourself.

That would be like me saying on the economy, it should be run correctly; whatever the experts say - without having a specific opinion on any one issue. For someone who writes articles on this, I don't know what you're basing your opinions on - just trusting someone else to decide for you.

If you have no opinion on Iran's stalling, nuclear warhead plans, hidden facilities, etc., then what are you doing even trying to make a case for anything by writing articles; if you don't have a full understanding of everything involved?

[Yirmeyahu]

You asked me my personal view and I gave it to you. How you concluded from that that I have an insufficient knowledge to write about or state my opinion I don't know. Certainly, there is a great deal of information I'm unaware of. I'm not God, not omniscient. I can't know everything about everything. I study and research and write about what I learn and share the knowledge with others.

If there's any knowledge you have that you think would alter my personal view, you're welcome to share it.

As things stand, my personal view is as I twice stated, that I agree with the IAEA that there are areas of concern and questions needed answering (such as those you mentioned), but that there's no evidence of an active program to develop nuclear weapons and that inspections, monitoring, and verification should be ongoing, without interference.

That is a reasonable position.

[Smurf-Herder]

You asked me my personal view and I gave it to you. How you concluded from that that I have an insufficient knowledge to write about or state my opinion I don't know. Certainly, there is a great deal of information I'm unaware of. I'm not God, not omniscient. I can't know everything about everything. I study and research and write about what I learn and share the knowledge with others.

If there's any knowledge you have that you think would alter my personal view, you're welcome to share it.

As things stand, my personal view is as I twice stated, that I agree with the IAEA that there are areas of concern and questions needed answering (such as those you mentioned), but that there's no evidence of an active program to develop nuclear weapons and that inspections, monitoring, and verification should be ongoing, without interference.

That is a reasonable position.

But the whole point of why the IAEA went to the UNSC was because of evidence you have no opinion on. The outstanding unanswered questions and areas of concern were about those specifics, that point to a second secret military program.

[Yirmeyahu]

But the whole point of why the IAEA went to the UNSC was because of evidence you have no opinion on.

Correction. Because of evidence I share their opinion on. I thought that should have been made perfectly clear by now.

Look, if this is how you wish to carry on this conversation, I'm not interested. I have no interest in foolishness.

[Smurf-Herder]

Correction. Because of evidence I share their opinion on. I thought that should have been made perfectly clear by now.

Look, if this is how you wish to carry on this conversation, I'm not interested. I have no interest in foolishness.

It isn't foolish to discuss what the evidence is. The only thing clear is, you trust the IAEA without question; even though they were fooled about the undeclared facilities until it was brought to their attention by intelligence agencies. Then they had to push Iran for answers; and Iran stalled for years, forcing the IAEA to send it to the UNSC. You trust what the IAEA says, even though the IAEA is not allowed to inspect everything they want and receive a proper accounting of all Iranian activities. In other words, you go by whatever the group says who can't really be sure, because they don't have all the information they need to make a proper evaluation of what Iran's doing - only an evaluation of how much Iran is willing to cooperate on now; among the things they've been doing for years in secret.

[Yirmeyahu]

It isn't foolish to discuss what the evidence is.

I couldn't agree more.

The only thing clear is, you trust the IAEA without question... You trust what the IAEA says...

That is an absolutely false presumption.

[Smurf-Herder]

I couldn't agree more.



That is an absolutely false presumption.

It's based on your answers.

[Yirmeyahu]

I'd love for you to explain the logic for how you arrived at such an erroneous conclusion.

[Smurf-Herder]

I'd love for you to explain the logic for how you arrived at such an erroneous conclusion.

I'm getting off this merry-go-round.

It's getting to dizzying, trying get a straight answer from you.

[Yirmeyahu]

I'm getting off this merry-go-round.

It's getting to dizzying, trying get a straight answer from you.

So tell me, what are your views on the plans Iran has of a nuclear warhead and the 15 page document for fabricating the uraniun sphere for the nuclear core of a weapon, they received from AQ Kahn? And also their modification of their Shahab-3 missiles to a triconal nosecone design? And the IRGC being in charge of their nuclear program? And the Green Salt project? -- Smurf-Herder

My views are the same as the IAEA, that there are areas of concern where questions exist and that the inspections and verification process should be allowed to continue without interference either from Iran or any other country. -- Yirmeyahu

That is a perfectly straight answer.

[Smurf-Herder]

So tell me, what are your views on the plans Iran has of a nuclear warhead and the 15 page document for fabricating the uraniun sphere for the nuclear core of a weapon, they received from AQ Kahn? And also their modification of their Shahab-3 missiles to a triconal nosecone design? And the IRGC being in charge of their nuclear program? And the Green Salt project? -- Smurf-Herder

My views are the same as the IAEA, that there are areas of concern where questions exist and that the inspections and verification process should be allowed to continue without interference either from Iran or any other country. -- Yirmeyahu

That is a perfectly straight answer.

It doesn't tell me where you stand on suspicions of a military program, if Iran doesn't clear those issues up. To me, not being able to have simple straight answers by Iran on those things lends credence to the fear that they do indeed have a secret parallel military program.

All I hear is Ahmadinejad saying the case is closed; and the IAEA saying they're making agreements on extending Iran's time to answer everything, without approval of the UNSC - basically, "Don-worry-bout-it!"

[Yirmeyahu]

If you want me to comment more specifically about whatever it is that you perceive as a concern, you'll have to be more specific about the matter and provide me with sources.

For instance, you mentioned the "Green Salt Project" as an area of concern. But what do we know about it? Iran denies there ever was such a thing and the only "evidence" suggesting otherwise are alleged designs to produce a facility to produce uranium gas on a laptop supposedly smuggled out of Iran and in possession of the CIA.

[Smurf-Herder]

If you want me to comment more specifically about whatever it is that you perceive as a concern, you'll have to be more specific about the matter and provide me with sources.

For instance, you mentioned the "Green Salt Project" as an area of concern. But what do we know about it? Iran denies there ever was such a thing and the only "evidence" suggesting otherwise are alleged designs to produce a facility to produce uranium gas on a laptop supposedly smuggled out of Iran and in possession of the CIA.

Maybe reading this would put things in perspective:

U.S. Statement on Iran: Report by the Director General on the Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran
IAEA Board of Governors Meeting, March 8, 2006
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/othr/62865.htm

"The Agency remains unable to corroborate Iran's belated and forced explanations, many of which the IAEA finds unsatisfactory or implausible, and the list of discrepancies and inconsistencies in Iran's declarations keeps growing. Meanwhile, Iran is moving forward aggressively with its enrichment program. Iran has informed the Agency that it intends to install the first 3000 P-1 centrifuges at Natanz in the fall of this year. It already has an 85-ton stockpile of UF6, which if enriched could produce enough material for about ten nuclear weapons. Although Iran continues to characterize its enrichment efforts as innocent research and development, it is abundantly clear that Iran is determined to achieve a large-scale enrichment capability, and to achieve it as soon as possible. Iran has taken these steps despite the widespread international calls to suspend all enrichment related activities including research and development.

We are equally disturbed by the indications that Iran's goal is not limited to mastering all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, but extend to weaponizing the product of that fuel cycle. In January, the Agency reported that Iran possesses a 15-page document on casting enriched and depleted uranium metal into hemispheres. In last week's technical briefing, DDG Heinonen noted that the instructions are clearly intended for highly-enriched uranium, and refer to "hemishells". IAEA inspectors seem to have no doubt that this information was expressly intended for the fabrication of nuclear weapons components. Iran refuses to turn this document over to the Agency, and won’t reveal when it was received. The Agency is also continuing to investigate the linkages between the Green Salt project, high-explosive tests, and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle. Dr. ElBaradei’s latest report suggests that the Agency is focusing on a specific company that appears to be associated with the Green Salt project, and Iran admits is connected to Esfahan and the G’Chine uranium mine. Iran still has not come clean."

[Yirmeyahu]

Well, the State Department is not the IAEA. I don't take the US government's word for what the IAEA has or has not said, or what the IAEA's positions are or are not.

False statements about the IAEA, UNSCOM, and UNMOVIC in the prelude to the invasion of Iraq should have taught us to go to the source itself. References to non-existent UN reports, for example, were pretty much standard fare and we should expect no difference now.

Do you have any statements on Iran from the IAEA you'd like to share?

[moonman]

Well let's see now. If I'm the major Mullah in Iran and the Commander in Chief of world's most powerfull millitary and also the leader of the only nation that has ever used new-kler weapons in war, would I be just a tad concerned about him including my country in some "Axis of Evil?"

Would I as major Mullah be wondering just WTF this cowboy is doing stationing 20,000 troops to the north and 160,000 to the west?

The cowboy did take out Saddam and he didn't have 'em. The cowboy didn't take out Kim Jong Il and that whacko does have 'em.

Hmmm? maybe I as major Mullah might be tuggin' on my beard and figurin' some way I can get a few of those new-kler thingys, just in case?

[Smurf-Herder]

Well, the State Department is not the IAEA. I don't take the US government's word for what the IAEA has or has not said, or what the IAEA's positions are or are not.

False statements about the IAEA, UNSCOM, and UNMOVIC in the prelude to the invasion of Iraq should have taught us to go to the source itself. References to non-existent UN reports, for example, were pretty much standard fare and we should expect no difference now.

Do you have any statements on Iran from the IAEA you'd like to share?

The problem is trying their search through hundreds of PDF documents.

You wanted statements directly from the IAEA? Here, sift through these 131 pages and let me know what it says.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc657.pdf

The latest statement that isn't wrapped up in a huge PDF file is that Iran has again agreed to take more time to answer their concerns; and they're happy with that.

If the IAEA is a credible agency, then they have to make clear that everything has been resolved and how in detail, to the public. Not just in vague terms in interviews.

[Yirmeyahu]

You wanted statements directly from the IAEA?

Well, certainly. Why cite the State Department saying what the IAEA says? Why not just tell me what the IAEA says that you wish me to comment upon? Go to the source.

Here, sift through these 131 pages and let me know what it says.

It's your line of inquiry, not mine. If you want me to comment on something, you'll have to give me something to comment on. I'm not going to sift through 131 pages trying to find things I think you might think are areas of concern you might wish me to comment upon.

If the IAEA is a credible agency, then they have to make clear that everything has been resolved and how in detail, to the public. Not just in vague terms in interviews.

The IAEA is a credible agency, and when matters of concern have been resolved they have made it clear in detail to the public. But as I said, there are still areas of concern the IAEA is continuing to investigate.

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear-weapons program going on right now." -- Mohammed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA

Is there anything vague about that statement?

[Smurf-Herder]

Well, certainly. Why cite the State Department saying what the IAEA says? Why not just tell me what the IAEA says that you wish me to comment upon? Go to the source.



It's your line of inquiry, not mine. If you want me to comment on something, you'll have to give me something to comment on. I'm not going to sift through 131 pages trying to find things I think you might think are areas of concern you might wish me to comment upon.



The IAEA is a credible agency, and when matters of concern have been resolved they have made it clear in detail to the public. But as I said, there are still areas of concern the IAEA is continuing to investigate.

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear-weapons program going on right now." -- Mohammed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA

Is there anything vague about that statement?

In answer to your last question, they have not received enough information to rule that out. All they've done is allowed Iran another delay in answering their concerns - which are based on evidence suggesting a second military program. Something they're proud of, which the UNSC doesn't agree with. The UNSC is at odds with the IAEA over it.

[Yirmeyahu]

In answer to your last question, they have not received enough information to rule that out.

That isn't an answer to my question. But, certainly, I agree with you.

All they've done is allowed Iran another delay in answering their concerns - which are based on evidence suggesting a second military program. Something they're proud of, which the UNSC doesn't agree with. The UNSC is at odds with the IAEA over it.


What do you mean?