Iran sanctions based on CIA fakes
New Sanctions on Iran
Rhonda Hauben 05.03.2008
Dubious Data from US to IAEA Sets Basis
The UN Security Council has imposed a new set of sanctions on Iran passing resolution 1803 by a vote of 14-0 with one member, Indonesia, abstaining.
On the surface it seemed that this was just another round of sanctions from the UN Security Council in response to Iran's failure to answer the questions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to stop its nuclear enrichment activity as the Security Council in two prior resolutions had required (1737, 1747) According to Britain, France and Germany (who is not on the Council, but one of the sponsors of the Security Council resolution ), and the U.S. this new set of sanctions (1803) was necessary to let Iran know that it was necessary to stop its enrichment activity and to buy its enriched uranium from other sources like other countries are doing. There had been some opposition from the non permanent members of the Council to the imposition of a new set of sanctions as the sanctions were rushed and formulated even before the IAEA Report was issued. Dumisani Kumalo, the South African Ambassador, wondered if this was sidelining the IAEA which is the UN body that is mandated to deal with the issues of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Marty Natalegawa, the Ambassador from Indonesia, the one member of the Security Council that abstained in the vote for new sanctions, said he wasn't convinced that new sanctions were an appropriate step considering Iran's cooperation with the IAEA.
The 'laptop of massdestruction'
But beneath the surface, the scenario of how this new set of sanctions has been passed is strikingly similar to the scenario that was employed to create the pretext for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In December 2007, the U.S. government's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was made public. It stated that there was no evidence that Iran is involved with other than the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
For a while that seemed to take the wind out of the sails of those who were promoting a new set of sanctions against Iran. Though Iran resisted implementing the requirement of the two prior Security Council resolutions (1737, 1747) that it suspend its nuclear enrichment actvity, with the IAEA, it had formulated a workplan to answer the outstanding questions that the IAEA said needed explanation. Iran expected a good report in the February 22, 2008 IAEA Report. Iran was asking that the oversight over its nuclear program be returned to the IAEA by the Security Council. Iran offered to implement the Additional Protocol if the matter was transferred out of the Security Council.
There appeared to be little basis for the Security Council to continue its demands on Iran, demands that were contrary to Iran's rights under the NPT to the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But the IAEA workplan agreed to between Iran and the IAEA had one additional section yet to be acted on. This section was to be about "Studies", rather than actual work with nuclear material.
The material in this section related to a laptop that the US intelligence agency had acquired which German officials identified as originating with the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK) and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI). The U.S. State Department has NCRI on its list of terrorist organizations. (see:
In the workplan Iran and the IAEA agreed to in August 2007, Iran explained that the documents eminating from the laptop were "politically motivated and baseless allegations," but if it was provided with specific documentation, it would review it and "inform the Agency of its assessment."
The IAEA-Report: No concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material
The IAEA was only able to give Iran some partial documentation on February 3-5, 2008, just a few weeks before the IAEA Report was due to be completed on February 22. Iran's assessment of what it received was that they were fabrications containing the names of non-existent individuals and offices.
Not until almost two weeks later, on February 14, was Iran told that the US had made more documents available and that it would be able to examine the bulk of documents related to the allegations from the laptop against it.
This was clearly too late for Iran to be able to respond in time for its response to be included in the IAEA Report. The result was that the report
![[Image]](http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/icons/inline/zitat.gif){kind=icon}
The IAEA report explains that the agency has not detected nuclear activity with regard to the alleged studies, but it includes a statement that:
Thus what was to be a good report is turned into a new set of questions about data that wasn't even made available to Iran during the reporting period. The IAEA has the obligation to provide evidence of any problem with regard to Iran's program, treating Iran as innocent until proven otherwise. But the report includes a section that transforms this obligation into its opposite - this is similar to the obligation put on Iraq to prove the negative that it didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction
The
Iran is presented with the obligation to prove the absence of something, even though the Report goes on to acknowledge that "with the exception of the issue of the alleged studies, which is outstanding, the Agency has no concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material."
Turning of the Screw: Quick Conclusions...
A statement of the six nations that drafted of Resolution 1803 against Iran refers to the materials the US recently declassified to present as allegations against Iran. The statement
Similarly, the statement of the American Ambassador about the issuing of the sanction resolution, says:
The Belgian Ambassador also refers to this issue:
The Panamian Ambassador also refers to the section of the report about the need for Iran to prove "the absence of undeclaried nuclear material and activities in Iran."
...and very slow handing out of important material
The laptop of dubious origin and its supposed information has been in the hands of the US government since 2004. The US waited until a few days before the IAEA Report was due out before turning over material to the IAEA to make available. By so doing the US helped to turn a report highly favorable to Iran's cooperation with the IAEA into one that was associated with studies related to military objectives though no proof existed to support such allegations.
Strikingly, an
Why a report from an event that happened a week earlier appears on the front page of the New York Times, on the day that sanctions against Iran are being voted on, is a serious question to be examined. This is reminiscent of the role that Judith Miller and Michael Gordon played in spreading the false stories of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq as the pretext for the US invasion of Iraq.
The article says that "Diplomats said the Vienna presentation bolstered the Security Council's resolve to impose a third round of sanctions."
It explains that:
"Target Iran"
The article fails to say anything about the dubious origins of the data and the laptop or about the
In his book, "Target Iran", Scott Ritter maintains that the U.S. government policy toward Iran is to deny Iran the ability to develop an indigenous uranium enrichment capability. Ritter describes how the US government equates uranium enrichment for nuclear energy with nuclear weapon capability, glossing over the fact that the peaceful use of nuclear energy is a right under the NPT. In order to generate power using nuclear fuel, there must be fuel. There is no prohibition in the NPT against the enrichment of uranium for use as fuel in a nuclear power generator.
Most of the European members of the Security Council and Russia maintain that Iran has no need to have an indigenous uranium enrichment capability.
Iran, to the contrary, disagrees. Iran argues that creating its own fuel is the best way to guarantee it will have a stable supply of energy. It also maintains that this is its right under the NPT. Furthermore, it notes that there is no legal basis to take this right away and thus the transfer of the Iranian uranium enrichment issue to the Security Council was an illegitimate maneuver to take away a right that Iran possesses under the NPT.
The Security Council process: a mechanism for implementing the US policy against Iran
Since there is no mechanism of appeal from a decision of the Security Council, Iran is faced with the problem of how to deal with the increasing sanctions against it and the public relations campaign of allegations that it is to respond to, regardless of the suspect nature of the origin and purpose of these allegations.
Meanwhile the New York Times and other media fail to examine the claims that are being used to increase the level of sanctions against Iran and instead recirculate previously discredited claims as if they are new. The Security Council process thus becomes a mechanism for implementing the US policy against Iran, rather than an institutional process that provides an impartial investigation of the conflict between the US and Iran.
Though he voted in favor of the sanctions, Kumalo, the South African Ambassador, stated his concern with the process of the Security Council in its treatment of Iran. He
He proposes that the failure of the Security Council to enhance the authority of the IAEA will have implications for the credibility of the Security Council.
An Alalam correspondent in Vienna
Iran had cooperated with the IAEA over a period of time to answer the questions about its past activities that the IAEA legitimately might have so as to set the basis for the sanctions to be removed. The US goal, however, as was shown with Iraq and the false narrative of Weapons of Mass Destruction, was not the goal it claimed but instead to carry out a set of hidden policy objectives. Ritter proposes that the US goal in Iran, as it was in Iraq, is regime change. Ritter writes:
Given this situation, the Security Council actions of imposing an escalating set of sanctions against Iran becomes a means of helping the US to create a pretext for its policy of hostility against Iran. There is a need for a press that will be able to expose such hidden political objectives and the role that the UN is playing in the process.
Earth's magnetic field:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home