March 9, 1:46 PMLA County Nonpartisan ExaminerCarl Herman
Levying war against the US is defined as treason in the US Constitution. The political and corporate media oligarchy who lied to levy war in Iraq committed treason against the US.
The latest lie is one of egregious omission: refusing to communicate to the American public Iran’s refutation of US government lying rhetoric of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; printed below. When media and government silence the voice of opposition, this shouts-out as propaganda that middle school students are taught to recognize.
In addition, IAEA has used curious and twisted language
in their reports; finding no diversion of nuclear material from legal and lawful use should be their emphasis. The fact it is not is prima facie
evidence that political pressure is being exerted on IAEA leadership to spin their reports against Iran.
The history of US political pressure to cause war rather than ethical address of concerns is powerful evidence. IAEA is likely under the same type of political pressure to make a case for war with Iran that we witnessed before the US invasion of Iraq: the US eliminated the UN agency director
who would have resolved concerns of alleged Iraq weapons. As I previously reported:
“…the conservative first option should have been the UN Security Council voting for the UN WMD agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to directly request Saddam to submit to OPCW’s authority. The Director-general of OPCW, Jose Bustani, was in talks with Saddam to do so. Instead of supporting this reasonable alternative to war, the US promised to withhold its funding of the UN (22% of the UN’s budget) until Bustani was fired. The US called Bustani’s talks with Saddam an “ill-considered initiative.” The US request was honored; the US then paid its 2002 UN dues in April 2002; less than one year before the US invasion of Iraq. This was the first time in UN history where the Director of an international program was fired.
By the way, the US does not cooperate with the OPCW to ensure US compliance with International Laws of chemical and biological WMD.”
Again, the bottom line is that war rhetoric against Iran is in the face of Iran’s compliance with legal and peaceful use of nuclear energy and medicine under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The false outrage Obama and other war mongers have is the more complicated issue of Iran’s voluntary adaption and then withdrawal from Additional Protocol above and beyond NPT
. The current non-issue is US prevention of Iran buying medical isotopes
on the open market for crucial medical imaging procedures and treatment to nearly one million Iranians, and US complaint when Iran legally produces it in their own facility.
Please let this evil propaganda sink in: the US is threatening war, including first-strike nuclear weapons, over a volume of legitimate medicine less than a sip of your morning coffee that the US withholds from Iran.
Criminally complicit political leaders and corporate media show their commitment to war by not simply communicating these facts that prove how easily this issue could be resolved.
The links above include additional resources and policy recommendations to end US unlawful wars.
Here is Iran’s communication
in good faith effort to represent their refutation of US claims and the twisted IAEA report language:
Communication dated 1 March 2010 received from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency regarding the implementation of safeguards in Iran
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA
1- The report (GOV/2010/10) is not balanced and factual since it has not duly reflected the cooperation, letters and explanations of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the questions of or communication made with the Agency.
2- The report, in contradiction to the Agency’s statutory mandate, contained tremendous confidential technical details which create a lot of confusions for various groups of readers, diplomats, experts and the public at large.
3- The only new development since the last report by the former Director General is the successful enrichment activity up to 20% in order to produce the required fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor after Iran was disappointed due to lack of a responsible response to its legitimate request. But the lengthy text of the historical background and repeating obsolete issues such as alleged studies, so called American laptop, with details has created confusion for the public. The alleged studies, including baseless allegation on Green Salt Project, high explosive testing and missile re-entry vehicle, had been raised over 4 years ago, thus is not a new issue. The Safeguards Department has claimed that the intention of this report is to refresh the memories of the members of the Board of Governors at the cost of public confusion and damaging the Agency’s credibility. Despite there has been no any other new development, this DG report (GOV/2010/10) complies with parts of the past DG’s reports
which have been chosen selectively and incompletely, specifically focused on unproved and baseless allegations, so called alleged studies, and possible military dimension.
4- Pursuant to the official communication by Iran dated 7th February 2010 in which it officially notified the Agency about its decision to start enrichment activities up to 20%, Iran did not start the activity until the Agency officially had acknowledged the receipt of its notification and informed Iran on the same day that the inspectors have already been instructed to be present at FEP in Natanz on 9th February 2010. [Quote from the letter of the Agency by the Director of the Division of Operations B, Department of Safeguards, dated 8 February 2010: “I refer to your letter dated 8 February 2010 (Ref.M/137/315/5009) and I would like to inform you that our inspectors have been instructed to be at FEP on the 9th February 2010 to detach seal at the 30B cylinder containing LEU, maintain continuity of knowledge during re-batching to a 5B cylinder and seal both the 30B and 5B cylinder after the verification”]
The centrifuges used for this purpose were already under full scope safeguards including 24 hours surveillance of the Agency’s camera and the routine inspections. Iran however decided to inform the Agency before taking any action and also to invite the inspectors to be present at the time of commencement of the 20% activity. Therefore, the text of paragraph 11 of the report is in contrary to the factual arrangement and is misleading.
5- The fact that all declared nuclear materials is accounted for and is remained peaceful and under the Agency full scope surveillance is not reflected and is a missed essential element of this report.
6- Mixing the notions of “all nuclear material”, “declared nuclear material” and the issue of “assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material” in the context of Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) and Additional Protocol, respectively, in a non-professional manner, has undermined the full cooperation of Iran in accordance with its CSA obligation and has misled the public.
7- The facts that the material of the alleged studies has lack of authenticity, that no nuclear material was used and no components were made as declared by the former Director General in respect of baseless alleged studies, are missing parts in this report.
8- The report lacks any reference to the fact that the United States did not permit the Agency to deliver to Iran the material related to the alleged studies, associated to the so called American laptop, thus the Agency’s verification activities were jeopardized and its credibility damaged, since the Agency was obliged to deliver the material to Iran in accordance with the Work Plan (INFCIRC/711) agreed upon by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Agency. One could easily notice the criticism of the former Director General in this respect.
9- It should be recalled that there were only six past outstanding issues which had been included in the agreed Work Plan (INFCIRC/711) and that all of them have been resolved. Also the part IV. 1 of the Work Plan
reads as follows: “These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s past nuclear program and activities.” Therefore, no new issues should be raised such as “possible military dimension”.
10- According to the Work Plan agreed upon by Iran and the Agency on 21 August 2007 (INFCIRC/711), the Alleged Studies have been fully dealt with by Iran and the item in the Work Plan is concluded. Any
expectation of another round of substantive discussion or the Agency’s request for providing information and access is absolutely in contravention with the spirit and the letter of such an agreement which both parties have been committed to. It should be recalled that the agreed Work Plan is the outcome of fruitful and intensive negotiations by three top officials in charge of Safeguards, Legal and Policy Making Organs of the Agency with Iran and eventually acknowledged by the Board of Governors. Therefore, it is highly expected that the Agency respects its agreement with Member States, otherwise the mutual trust and confidence which is essential for the sustainable cooperation shall be put in jeopardy.
Please see the weblink below for the special comments, very interesting.