President Obama: Iran A Year Away From Nuclear Weapon

[FrodosPet]

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/14/obama-says-iran-a-year-away-from-nuclear-weapon/

Iran is about a year away from developing a nuclear weapon and the United States remains committed to doing everything in its power to prevent that from happening, President Obama said in an exclusive interview aired Thursday on Israeli TV.

Just days before he is to arrive in Israel for his first presidential visit, Mr. Obama told Israel's Channel 2 TV that he still prefers diplomacy over force, but that a nuclear Iran is a "red line" and all options remain on the table to stop it.

~ snip ~

"What I have also said is that there is a window, not an infinite period of time, but a window of time where we can resolve this diplomatically and it is in all of our interests" to do this, he said. "They (Iran) are not yet at the point, I think, where they have made a fundamental decision to get right with the international community ... I do think they are recognizing that there is a severe cost to continue on the path they are on and that there is another door open."

~ snip ~

Mr. Obama said that a nuclear Iran would also be "dangerous for the world. It would be dangerous for U.S. national security interests."

~ snip ~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the bright side, it's not "Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb Bomb Iran!"

Let's just hope Iran decides to get good with the world before things get all radioactive.

[Initech]

1. They've been saying this every day since 9/12/2001.

[FrodosPet]

4. We know the Neocons have been pushing for war since the 1978 Iranian revolution

But why are President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Kerry talking about stopping Iran from having nukes if there is nothing there?

[stevenleser]

2. I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I will not accept US Intel's version of events. If the IAEA doesnt

agree, I dont agree.

[FrodosPet]

6. Have you been keeping up with the IAEA reports?

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml

I've only glanced at the latest report and resolution - going to study them more in-depth this weekend.

What I have gotten out of it so far is that the IAEA is not happy with Iran, and the nature of their activities.

If you get a chance, I would be interested in some other opinions on what the IAEA is saying here. Are they saying that Iran is NOT developing a weapon, but are merely out of compliance on some technical points? Are there safety issues? Why are they saying stuff like:

4. In November 2011, the Board adopted resolution GOV/2011/69, in which, inter alia, it stressed that it was essential for Iran and the Agency to intensify their dialogue aimed at the urgent resolution of all outstanding substantive issues for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding those issues, including access to all relevant information, documentation, sites, material and personnel in Iran. In that resolution, the Board also called on Iran to engage seriously and without preconditions in talks aimed at restoring international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. In light of this, between January and the beginning of September 2012, Agency and Iranian officials held six rounds of talks in Vienna and Tehran, including during a visit by the Director General to Tehran in May 2012. However, no concrete results were achieved.

5. On 13 September 2012, the Board adopted resolution GOV/2012/50, in which, inter alia, it decided that Iranian cooperation with Agency requests aimed at the resolution of all outstanding issues was essential and urgent in order to restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. The Board also stressed that it was essential for Iran to immediately conclude and implement a structured approach for resolving outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme, including, as a first step, providing the Agency with the access it had requested to relevant sites. Immediately following the adoption of that resolution, the Agency took steps to engage Iran in further talks.

6. Since the Director General’s November 2012 report, Agency and Iranian officials have held three further rounds of talks in Tehran – on 13 December 2012, 16 and 17 January 2013 and 13 February 2013 – aimed at finalizing the structured approach document. While the Secretariat’s commitment to continued dialogue is unwavering, it has not been possible to reach agreement with Iran on the structured approach or to begin substantive work on the outstanding issues, including those related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.

[stevenleser]

9. That is not very different from reports from Iraq in January and February 2003. It was not until

March 7, 2003 when the full reports came out that it was clear there was nothing there. Not being 100% cooperative does not mean that there is weapons development happening.

That being said, I am watching.

Three things would have to happen before I would agree with military action. The first is that the IAEA would have to essentially throw up its hands and say, "We are not getting any cooperation anymore on the unsettled items and further negotiations would be fruitless." #2 - Either the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council would have to authorize the use of force. #3 - It would have to be a multinational force, meaning at least a dozen countries or so participating.

If any of those things fail to happen and we go to war, I will be against it.

[FrodosPet]

11. Can I get your feedback on the following IAEA report?

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Report by the Director General

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2013/gov2013-6.pdf

~ snip ~

H. Possible Military Dimensions

47. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these. Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. Iran has dismissed the Agency’s concerns, largely on the grounds that Iran considers them to be based on unfounded allegations.

48. The Annex to the Director General’s November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. This information is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. Since November 2011, the Agency has obtained more information which further corroborates the analysis contained in the aforementioned Annex.

49. In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council reaffirmed Iran’s obligations to take the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82, and to cooperate fully with the Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency. As indicated in Section B above, since the publication of the Director General’s November 2011 report, although the Board has adopted two resolutions addressing the urgent need to resolve outstanding issues regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions, it has not been possible to finalize the structured approach document or to begin substantive work in this regard.

50. Parchin: As stated in the Annex to the Director General’s November 2011 report, information provided to the Agency by Member States indicates that Iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments; such experiments would be strong indicators of possible nuclear weapon development. The information also indicates that the containment vessel was installed at the Parchin site in 2000. The location at the Parchin site of the vessel was only identified in March 2011, and the Agency notified Iran of that location in January 2012.

51. As previously reported, satellite imagery available to the Agency for the period from February 2005 to January 2012 shows virtually no activity at or near the building housing the containment vessel (chamber building). Since the Agency’s first request for access to this location, however, satellite imagery shows that extensive activities and resultant changes have taken place at this location. The Agency has reiterated during each round of talks with Iran its request for access to the location at the Parchin site, but Iran has not acceded to that request.

52. Among the most significant developments observed by the Agency at this location since the Director General’s report in November 2012 are:

o Reinstatement of some of the chamber building’s features (e.g. wall panels and exhaust piping);
o Alterations to the roofs of the chamber building and the other large building;
o Dismantlement and reconstruction of the annex to the other large building;
o Construction of one small building at the same place where a building of similar size had previously been demolished;
o Spreading, levelling and compacting of another layer of material over a large area; and
o Installation of a fence that divides the location into two areas.

53. As previously reported, Iran has stated that the allegation of nuclear activities at the Parchin site is “baseless” and that “the recent activities claimed to be conducted in the vicinity of the location of interest to the Agency, has nothing to do with specified location by the Agency”. To date, Iran has only provided an explanation for the soil displacement by trucks, which it stated was “due to constructing the Parchin new road”.

54. In light of the extensive activities that have been, and continue to be, undertaken by Iran at the aforementioned location on the Parchin site, when the Agency gains access to the location, its ability to conduct effective verification will have been seriously undermined. While the Agency continues to assess that it is necessary to have access to this location without further delay, it is essential that Iran also provide without further delay substantive answers to the Agency’s detailed questions regarding the Parchin site and the foreign expert, as requested by the Agency in February 2012.

~ snip ~

----------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it is the ultimate hoax. Perhaps the IAEA has been taken over by Netanyahu, Cheney and Wolfowitz. But a lot of highly respected people in positions to know seem to think Iran is actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.

I hope we can avoid a military conflict. But reality check: Iran is not fully cooperating with the United Nations, and the IAEA says that over and over in their reports.

[stevenleser]

13. Much more ominous. It's clear I am going to have to discuss with someone at the IAEA

Maybe even do an interview with them. More soon...

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining

a nuclear weapon but he said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Does this sound familiar?

Just, Fuck.

[LittleBlue]

5. Here we go again

When does the cycle of pointless aggression end?

[WinkyDink]

7. Look out for...the Mushroom Cloud! [tm Condi Rice].

[jsr]

8. UN inspectors also need to check the infant incubators

and look for dead infants on the cold floor.

[Zax2me]

10. Times like these, so thrilled it is he and not romney in charge.

Makes me sleep better.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. oh, please don't tell me he is trying to convince us that we need to go to war with Iran

Americans are so war fatigued. Not even republicans talk about war as much as they use to because they know the American people are war tired and weary of war.

[FrodosPet]

14. I honestly think they are trying to avoid it

The Administration keeps talking about giving diplomatic solutions as many chances as possible.

I don't see a rush to war, but I believe they need that threat as a way to get Iran's attention. Otherwise, we have nothing that can motivate them.

[MisterP]

15. that's why it's not the GOP that'd propose any war

remember that we've *already* had a war of aggression in an oil-rich country that flatly, explicitly, and publicly repudiated the Constitution!