PDA

View Full Version : The IAEA Report on Iran


Smurf-Herder
11-16-2007, 06:54 PM
Report Raises New Doubts on Iran Nuclear Program

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeast/16nuke.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"VIENNA, Nov. 15 — The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report on Thursday that Iran had made new but incomplete disclosures about its past nuclear activities, missing a critical deadline under an agreement with the agency and virtually assuring a new push by the United States to impose stricter international sanctions.

In the report, the agency confirmed for the first time that Iran had reached the major milestone of 3,000 operating centrifuges, a tenfold increase from just a year ago. In theory, that means that it could produce enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon within a year to 18 months.

But the agency said that the centrifuges — fast-spinning machines used to enrich uranium — were operating well below their capacity, and that so far it had not discovered any evidence that Iran was enriching to a level that would produce bomb-grade fuel.

The report made clear that even while providing some answers, Iran has continued to shield many aspects of its nuclear program. Iran’s “cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive,” the report said, adding that because of restrictions Iran has placed on inspectors the agency’s understanding of the full scope of Iran’s nuclear program is “diminishing.”

The Bush administration, which suspects Iran of having a nuclear weapons program, seized on the report’s findings as evidence of Tehran’s determination to forge ahead with its nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations Security Council.

“We think that today’s report does not in any way, shape or form answer the questions that the U.N. Security Council has had about Iran’s nuclear program,” R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said. “Nothing in today’s I.A.E.A. report alleviates our major concern that Iran is trying to develop the technology that would lead to a nuclear capability.”

The British Foreign Office, meanwhile, urged Tehran to “come clean on all outstanding issues without delay.”

The report clearly acknowledges that Iran has ignored for more than a year the Security Council’s demand that it stop enriching uranium.

Iran’s leaders hailed the report as proof that it had been truthful about its nuclear program and was right to resist Western pressure to halt the program. “The world will see that the Iranian nation has been right and the resistance of our nation has been correct,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in Iran.

Iran’s new chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, told reporters that the report “means all the claims that Iran’s nuclear activities have a military agenda and are deviant are not true,” and that the basis for Security Council sanctions “has collapsed.”

At the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador, said the United States would move for a new Council resolution imposing additional sanctions on Tehran.

Asked about statements this week from China, a veto-bearing member of the Council, reiterating its opposition to sanctions, Mr. Khalilzad said China must understand that the only way to make diplomacy work in Iran was by forceful Council action.

“In recent days, there has been a dragging of the feet on the part of the Chinese,” he said. “But I don’t think the Chinese would want to take responsibility for the failure of diplomacy.”

The report could also fuel debate about how much time is left for diplomacy to succeed. The confirmation that Iran has 3,000 operational centrifuges suggests that it is quickly moving to a position where it could, if it wanted to, produce a bomb. Iran has denied that it seeks a nuclear weapon.

Under the terms of a “work plan” concluded last summer, Iran was to have met a series of deadlines to resolve all unanswered questions about suspicious nuclear activities dating back two decades.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian lawyer who leads the agency, was harshly criticized by skeptics who said that deal would simply give Iran more time to stall while progressing toward its goal of making a nuclear weapon.

Dr. ElBaradei defended the plan at the time, saying there were “clear deadlines” that proved it was “not an open-ended invitation to dallying with the agency or a ruse to prolong negotiations and avoid sanctions.”

Now, officials close to the agency are saying it was unrealistic to expect that Iran would be able to disclose all relevant information so soon in the delicate process. They said the deadlines could slip into January or February.

The report acknowledged that Iran had provided the agency with considerable new documentation and allowed interviews with top nuclear officials involved in the centrifuge program in the 1980s and 1990s.

Iran “has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan,” the report said.

But it concluded that additional verification was needed to guarantee that the explanations were complete.

One senior official linked to the nuclear agency described overall progress on the work plan as “a significant step forward.” But he said that he “would not call” the centrifuge file “closed,” stressing that verification was a “continuous process.”

He compared the agency’s information to a jigsaw puzzle of the Mona Lisa, saying that it was a painting of a “charming, good-looking young lady, smiling,” but that there were “bits and pieces missing.”

In Washington, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group that tracks nuclear issues, said the report “shows the centrifuge issue is not closed.”

One major concern centers on a new generation of centrifuges that Mr. Ahmadinejad last year claimed Iran was developing. In a speech, he boasted that the P-2 centrifuge, a modified, more advanced and reliable machine than the P-1 that Iran had been using, would quadruple Iran’s powers of uranium enrichment.

The report said that Iran on divulged some information about the P-2 program on Nov. 8, adding that it would discuss the issue further in December.

That means Iran missed a reporting deadline to clear up the issue even while pursuing the far more sophisticated and faster way of making atomic fuel. American officials and inspectors fear the new generation of centrifuges could speed Iran’s path to developing a nuclear weapon.

One of the officials close to the agency said that even if all other issues of Iran’s past activities were resolved, a sticking point could be the refusal of the United States to turn over classified documents Iran is demanding that involve a suspected Iranian entity called the Green Salt Project. All officials spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

The project is said to have worked on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design, and the agency suspects links between Green Salt and Iran’s ostensibly peaceful nuclear program. If that evidence were substantiated, it would undercut Iran’s claims that its program is aimed solely at producing electrical power.

Iran, while dismissing the existence of such a program, wants to take possession of the documents that the United States uncovered on a stolen laptop, which it says pertain to Green Salt. Iran could cry foul unless the Americans turn over the documents, which Dr. ElBaradei said Iran had a right to.

Still, the new report urged Iran to do more if the work plan is to succeed. “Iran’s active cooperation and full transparency are indispensable for full and prompt implementation of the work plan,” the report said.

The report also faulted Iran for continuing to deny inspectors broad access to its nuclear facilities and manufacturing sites under a voluntary protocol that Iran has suspended. The agency’s limited access means that it cannot say with certainty that Iran does not have a secret weapons-related uranium enrichment program.

The agency’s 35-nation board is to meet next week to discuss the report. Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, is expected to deliver a second separate report on the status of negotiations with Iran’s nuclear team.

Mr. Solana represents the five permanent members of the Security Council — the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain — plus Germany in a stalemated process designed to persuade Iran to suspend its enrichment activities as required by the Council. In a recent meeting in Rome with the Iranians, Mr. Solana failed to make any progress, and the Iranians have yet to set a date for a follow-up meeting."

radioguy
11-16-2007, 08:23 PM
Iran is developing nuclear weapons capabilities... What a shock!

Raise your hand if you didn't figure that out already.

Anyone... Anyone... Bueller... Bueller?

Yirmeyahu
11-16-2007, 10:48 PM
According to Iran, in its early years, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) concluded a number of contracts with entities from France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America to enable it to acquire nuclear power and a wide range of related nuclear fuel cycle services, but after the 1979 revolution, these contracts with a total value of around $10 billion were not fulfilled.

...

Senior Iranian officials said that, in the mid-1980s, Iran started working with
many countries to revitalize its nuclear programme to meet the State’s growing energy needs.

...

However, apart from uranium conversion technology acquired from an entity in China, Iran was not able to acquire other nuclear fuel cycle facilities or technology from abroad. As a result, according to Iran, a decision was
made in the mid-1980s to acquire uranium enrichment technology on the black market.

To assess the detailed information provided by Iran, the Agency held discussions with senior current and former Iranian officials. The Agency also examined supporting documentation, including Iranian legislation, contracts with foreign companies, agreements with other States and nuclear site
surveys.

...

Bearing in mind the long history and complexity of the programme and the dual nature of enrichment technology, the Agency is not in a position, based on the information currently available to it, to draw conclusions about the original underlying nature of parts of the programme.

...

Iran reiterated that it did not acquire uranium casting and reconversion
technology or equipment from the network, nor did it ask for the 15-page document describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal, and its casting into hemispheres (GOV/2005/87, para. 6).

...

In response to the Agency’s enquiry as to whether there was any military involvement in the programme, Iran has stated that no institution other than the AEOI was involved in the decisionmaking process or in the implementation of the centrifuge enrichment programme.

Based on interviews with available Iranian officials and members of the supply network, limited documentation provided by Iran and procurement information collected through the Agency’s independent investigations, the Agency has concluded that Iran’s statements are consistent with other information available to the Agency concerning Iran’s acquisition of declared P-1 entrifuge
enrichment technology in 1987.

...

Based on visits made by Agency inspectors to the P-2 workshop in 2004, examination of the company owner’s contract, progress reports and logbooks, and information available on procurement enquiries, the Agency has concluded that Iran’s statements on the content of the declared P-2 R&D
activities are consistent with the Agency’s findings.

...

On 8 November 2007, the Agency received a copy of the 15-page document describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal and casting it into hemispheres. Iran has reiterated that this document was received along with the P-1 centrifuge documentation in 1987. The
Agency has shared this document with Pakistan, the purported country of origin, and is seeking more information. Iran stated that the reconversion unit with casting equipment mentioned in the one-page 1987 offer was not pursued with the supply network. Apart from the conversion experiments of UF4 to uranium metal at the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre (GOV/2004/60 Annex, para. 2), the Agency has seen no indication of any UF6 reconversion and casting activity in Iran.

...

While Iran has stated that it has reached enrichment levels up to 4.8% U-235 at FEP, the highest U-235 enrichment measured so far from the environmental samples taken by the Agency from cascade components and
related equipment is 4.0%.

...

On 11 November 2007, the Agency conducted design information verification at the IR-40 and noted that construction of the facility was proceeding. Satellite imagery appears to indicate that the Heavy Water Production Plant is operating. The Agency must rely on satellite imagery of this plant as
it does not have routine access to it while the Additional Protocol remains unimplemented.

...

During the current conversion campaign at UCF, which began on 31 March 2007, approximately 78 tonnes of uranium in the form of UF6 had been produced as of 5 November 2007. This brings the total amount of UF6 produced at UCF since March 2004 to approximately 266 tonnes,
all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance.

...

F. Summary

39. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran
concluded a Facility Attachment for FEP. However, it should be noted that, since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, pursuant to the Additional Protocol and as a transparency measure. As a result, the Agency’s knowledge about
Iran’s current nuclear programme is diminishing.

40. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP. Iran has also continued the construction of the IR-40 and operation of the Heavy Water Production Plant.

41. There are two remaining major issues relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme: Iran’s past and current centrifuge enrichment programme and the alleged studies. The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided on the declared past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge
programmes are consistent with its findings. The Agency will, however, continue to seek corroboration and is continuing to verify the completeness of Iran’s declarations. The Agency intends in the next few weeks to focus on the contamination issue as well as the alleged studies and other activities that could have military applications.

42. Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan. However, its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive. As previously stated, Iran’s
active cooperation and full transparency are indispensable for full and prompt implementation of the work plan.

43. In addition, Iran needs to continue to build confidence about the scope and nature of its present programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally importantly, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. Although the Agency has no concrete information, other than that addressed through the work plan, about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran without full implementation of the Additional Protocol. This is especially important in the light of Iran’s
undeclared activities for almost two decades and the need to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Therefore, the Director General again urges Iran to implement the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date. The Director General also urges Iran to
implement all the confidence building measures required by the Security Council, including the suspension of all enrichment related activities.

44. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071115IAEA-report.pdf

SirMoby
11-16-2007, 11:06 PM
OK so what do we do about it? If we bomb them, who do we deal with the after shock? Remember, they have oil and so does Russia. Then China might cut off our loans.

What to do?

Yirmeyahu
11-17-2007, 05:18 AM
OK so what do we do about it?

What should we do about what? What should be done is being done. IAEA inspections, monitoring and verification processes should continue.

Smurf-Herder
11-17-2007, 09:38 AM
What should we do about what? What should be done is being done. IAEA inspections, monitoring and verification processes should continue.

The whole point is, Iran is allowing less access for the inspectors to verify things. And the IAEA still can't get all the info they need to properly determine what they might have that is undeclared. While Iran keeps dragging the issues out, to buy more time to build.

Jesse Hemingway
11-17-2007, 09:45 AM
Drum roll please and who is full of shit like over 99% of the time:

http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=620&thisview=item

Smurf-Herder
11-17-2007, 11:04 AM
Drum roll please and who is full of shit like over 99% of the time:

http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=620&thisview=item

I just published the New York Times story, stating the facts. I highlighed in bold some pretty significant problems with Iran. Are you accusing the New York Times of being a neocon propaganda rag?

The facts are still the facts. And all the facts aren't known, thanks to Iran. Any statement saying Iran has cooperated is only brushing over the things they haven't cooperated on - leaving large holes in our ability to verify everything they say; and still unanswered questions by mutually agreed upon timelines. We are no closer to the goal of the IAEA being sure of anything. And still, they extend their time on being late for answering questions we had for them 2 years ago. This is a joke.

Here are some facts.

1) Iran has repeatedly denied things, only to admit them at a later date, just in time to look cooperative in trying to defuse sanction debates.

2) Iran has not fully cooperated on some critical issues, that involve being able to determine if they have a parallel military program; including the P-2 centrifuge program and off-limits facilities.

3) The outstanding issues are critical; and Iran is getting more secretive about it's activities.

Jesse Hemingway
11-17-2007, 12:53 PM
I just published the New York Times story, stating the facts. I highlighed in bold some pretty significant problems with Iran. Are you accusing the New York Times of being a neocon propaganda rag?

The facts are still the facts. And all the facts aren't known, thanks to Iran. Any statement saying Iran has cooperated is only brushing over the things they haven't cooperated on - leaving large holes in our ability to verify everything they say; and still unanswered questions by mutually agreed upon timelines. We are no closer to the goal of the IAEA being sure of anything. And still, they extend their time on being late for answering questions we had for them 2 years ago. This is a joke.

Here are some facts.

1) Iran has repeatedly denied things, only to admit them at a later date, just in time to look cooperative in trying to defuse sanction debates.

2) Iran has not fully cooperated on some critical issues, that involve being able to determine if they have a parallel military program; including the P-2 centrifuge program and off-limits facilities.

3) The outstanding issues are critical; and Iran is getting more secretive about it's activities.

Everyone knows your are right wing nut job who cares.

SirMoby
11-17-2007, 01:47 PM
I just published the New York Times story, stating the facts. I highlighed in bold some pretty significant problems with Iran. Are you accusing the New York Times of being a neocon propaganda rag?

The facts are still the facts. And all the facts aren't known, thanks to Iran. Any statement saying Iran has cooperated is only brushing over the things they haven't cooperated on - leaving large holes in our ability to verify everything they say; and still unanswered questions by mutually agreed upon timelines. We are no closer to the goal of the IAEA being sure of anything. And still, they extend their time on being late for answering questions we had for them 2 years ago. This is a joke.

Here are some facts.

1) Iran has repeatedly denied things, only to admit them at a later date, just in time to look cooperative in trying to defuse sanction debates.

2) Iran has not fully cooperated on some critical issues, that involve being able to determine if they have a parallel military program; including the P-2 centrifuge program and off-limits facilities.

3) The outstanding issues are critical; and Iran is getting more secretive about it's activities.
I understand all this. What I'm asking is your opinion on what we should do about it and how we manage any fall out.

Do you have some thoughts on the issue or not?

Yirmeyahu
11-17-2007, 09:52 PM
The whole point is, Iran is allowing less access for the inspectors to verify things.

Smurf-Herder, Iran had voluntarily allowed the IAEA greater access than that required under the NPT treaty.

Now, they are currently granting the IAEA access according to the terms of the treaty.

Iran's turn around on the issue of access is the result of US policy and the sanctions.

Are you accusing the New York Times of being a neocon propaganda rag?

Of course The New York Times is a propaganda outlet. Look at its reporting prior to the Iraq war. Look at the headline of this article: "Report Raises New Doubts on Iran Nuclear Program".

Really? What new doubts? Read the report for yourself. I posted some of the highlights.

The NYT says Iran missed "a critical deadline under an agreement with the agency". What deadline? The IAEA report says no such thing.

The NYT says, "In theory, that means that it could produce enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon within a year to 18 months."

Sure. If our theory depends upon assuming facts and circumstances that don't match reality.

Of course, the NYT picks one sentence out to report, that "Iran’s “cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive,” the report said".

Of course, they don't report what the IAEA report says in the sentence just prior until much further down in the article: "Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan."

The NYT says, "The report clearly acknowledges that Iran has ignored for more than a year the Security Council’s demand that it stop enriching uranium."

Sure it does. But the NYT doesn't tell you that the NPT treaty doesn't require party nations to take "confidence-building measures" that entail surrendering the right under the treaty to continue with research and development while inspections are ongoing.

And, of course, the NYT goes and gets quotes from hard-liners on Iran who of course are going to go at it from the angle that Iran is a rogue state developing nuclear weapons. They don't go to any nuclear experts to get quotes. Where's David Albright? Where's Mohammed ElBaradei? They mention him, but in a negative light, describing him as "the Egyptian lawyer who leads the agency" rather than by his title and saying he "was harshly criticized by skeptics who said that deal would simply give Iran more time to stall while progressing toward its goal of making a nuclear weapon."

The NYT falsely asserts "The report said that Iran on divulged some information about the P-2 program on Nov. 8, adding that it would discuss the issue further in December. That means Iran missed a reporting deadline to clear up the issue..."

Every IAEA report says issues will be discussed in the next report. It's like the Security Council saying it will remain seized of a matter. That's not a deadline, it's a statement of intent. This particular report doesn't give any deadlines.

"The report also faulted Iran for continuing to deny inspectors broad access to its nuclear facilities and manufacturing sites under a voluntary protocol that Iran has suspended."

Key word, "voluntary". Of course, the NYT doesn't explain why Iran isn't any longer granting access above and beyond that required by the NPT treaty.

Of course this is propaganda. It reeks of the kind of reporting the NYT gave us prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Iran has repeatedly denied things, only to admit them at a later date, just in time to look cooperative in trying to defuse sanction debates.

Give me one example.

2) Iran has not fully cooperated on some critical issues, that involve being able to determine if they have a parallel military program; including the P-2 centrifuge program and off-limits facilities.

The fact is that Iran has fully cooperated according to its obligations under the NPT treaty, and has even granted access above and beyond that required.

The outstanding issues are critical; and Iran is getting more secretive about it's activities.

Iran is not getting "more secretive", Iran simply is not volunteering to do more to "build confidence" on account of the hostility it has received in return for making an effort to come clean about its nuclear program.

This was completely predictable.

Smurf-Herder
11-18-2007, 11:29 AM
Smurf-Herder, Iran had voluntarily allowed the IAEA greater access than that required under the NPT treaty.

Now, they are currently granting the IAEA access according to the terms of the treaty.

Iran's turn around on the issue of access is the result of US policy and the sanctions.



Of course The New York Times is a propaganda outlet. Look at its reporting prior to the Iraq war. Look at the headline of this article: "Report Raises New Doubts on Iran Nuclear Program".

Really? What new doubts? Read the report for yourself. I posted some of the highlights.

The NYT says Iran missed "a critical deadline under an agreement with the agency". What deadline? The IAEA report says no such thing.

The NYT says, "In theory, that means that it could produce enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon within a year to 18 months."

Sure. If our theory depends upon assuming facts and circumstances that don't match reality.

Of course, the NYT picks one sentence out to report, that "Iran’s “cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive,” the report said".

Of course, they don't report what the IAEA report says in the sentence just prior until much further down in the article: "Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan."

The NYT says, "The report clearly acknowledges that Iran has ignored for more than a year the Security Council’s demand that it stop enriching uranium."

Sure it does. But the NYT doesn't tell you that the NPT treaty doesn't require party nations to take "confidence-building measures" that entail surrendering the right under the treaty to continue with research and development while inspections are ongoing.

And, of course, the NYT goes and gets quotes from hard-liners on Iran who of course are going to go at it from the angle that Iran is a rogue state developing nuclear weapons. They don't go to any nuclear experts to get quotes. Where's David Albright? Where's Mohammed ElBaradei? They mention him, but in a negative light, describing him as "the Egyptian lawyer who leads the agency" rather than by his title and saying he "was harshly criticized by skeptics who said that deal would simply give Iran more time to stall while progressing toward its goal of making a nuclear weapon."

The NYT falsely asserts "The report said that Iran on divulged some information about the P-2 program on Nov. 8, adding that it would discuss the issue further in December. That means Iran missed a reporting deadline to clear up the issue..."

Every IAEA report says issues will be discussed in the next report. It's like the Security Council saying it will remain seized of a matter. That's not a deadline, it's a statement of intent. This particular report doesn't give any deadlines.

"The report also faulted Iran for continuing to deny inspectors broad access to its nuclear facilities and manufacturing sites under a voluntary protocol that Iran has suspended."

Key word, "voluntary". Of course, the NYT doesn't explain why Iran isn't any longer granting access above and beyond that required by the NPT treaty.

Of course this is propaganda. It reeks of the kind of reporting the NYT gave us prior to the invasion of Iraq.



Give me one example.



The fact is that Iran has fully cooperated according to its obligations under the NPT treaty, and has even granted access above and beyond that required.



Iran is not getting "more secretive", Iran simply is not volunteering to do more to "build confidence" on account of the hostility it has received in return for making an effort to come clean about its nuclear program.

This was completely predictable.

You go to great lengths to excuse Iran's suspiscious activities; and just let them drag this out.

Yirmeyahu
11-18-2007, 11:36 AM
I go to great lengths to clarify the facts of the matter and dispel myths and falsehoods about the issue.

Islam Rocks!
11-18-2007, 11:49 AM
I go to great lengths to clarify the facts of the matter and dispel myths and falsehoods about the issue.I for one appreciate the lengths that you go to in sorting out the truth on this subject.

Thanks Yirmeyahu