Keeping Iran honest

[CHIMO]

It was very much a moment of high drama. Barack Obama, fresh from his history-making stint hosting the UN security council, took a break from his duties at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh to announce the existence of a secret, undeclared nuclear facility in Iran which was inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear programme, underscoring the president's conclusion that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow".

Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough sanctions against Iran if it did not fully comply with its obligations concerning the international monitoring of its nuclear programme, which at the present time is being defined by the US, Britain and France as requiring an immediate suspension of all nuclear-enrichment activity.

The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.

Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-inspections

[timeforpeace]

1. He promised to meet with dinnerjacket without preconditions, and he should keep his promise.

[Daveparts still]

2. If I were Iran's Leader

I would build a bomb without delay. Surrounded by nuclear powers and countries invaded by belligerent powers it would seem the only path to survival.

Iran's oil exports are falling, how else do I maintain the countries standard of living except through nuclear power? Iran is a member of the Nuclear non proliferation treaty and under the terms of the treaty other nuclear nations are supposed to supply assistance to wards the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Instead Iran faces sanctions and threats. Would you as the leader trust your future to supply your reactors to the open market?

Or would you enrich your own fuel?

Read the Iranian press then read the Israeli press and see who is openly hostile and who is being peaceful.

The whole issue is the protection of Israel's nuclear hegemony. Israel's nuclear program was illegal but the world said nothing. Israel is not a member of the non proliferation treaty and has never opened its facilities up for inspection.

Didn't Iran's President just announce this facility to the world? Did he have to or was he being open and honest?

The original and sole purpose for the non-proliferation treaty was to control the atom by making everyone play by the same rules. Now those who try to play by the rules are being punished for political purposes while those who ignored the rules help lead the charge.

It is a dangerous game that we are playing

[bemildred]

3. Iran precipitated the "crisis" by informing the IAEA about this second facility.

Thus forcing various parties to attack them for not mentioning it sooner. The old "No good deed goes unpunished" sort of thing.

Since we claim to have known about it all along, one can infer that it was being kept for later use when things were farther along and there was some political objective that it could be exploited in favor of, e.g. bombing Iran.

The Deity knows I do not want to applaud Ahm-an-idjit, but at the same time it seems perverse to bludgeon Iran for being forthcoming and volunteering information about their nuclear activities. Isn't that what we claim to want?