Iran: Neither Threat Nor Menace

So argues Scott Horton of Antiwar.com (a libertarian foreign policy website for which my wife works) in the Christian Science Monitor. Some of the reasons:

On September 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a new paper on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement which reported that the agency has “continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any military or other special purpose.”

Yet despite the IAEA report and clear assertions to the contrary, news articles that followed were dishonest to the extreme, interpreting this clean bill of health as just another wisp of smoke indicating nuclear fire in a horrifying near-future.

A Washington Post article published the very same day led the way with the aggressive and misleading headline “UN Report: Iran stockpiling nuclear materials,” “shorthanding” the facts right out of the narrative. The facts are that Iran’s terrifying nuclear “stockpile” is a small amount of uranium enriched to industrial grade levels for use in its domestic energy and medical isotope programs, all of it “safeguarded” by the IAEA....

late last week a group of Marxist holy warrior exiles called the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, working with the very same neoconservatives who sponsored Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress – which manufactured so much of the propaganda that convinced the American people to support the invasion of that country – accused the Iranian government of building a secret nuclear enrichment facility buried deep in tunnels near Qazvin....

Yet even US officials quickly admitted that they’ve known about these tunnels for years. “[T]here’s no reason at this point to think it’s nuclear,” one US official said – a quote that appeared in Fox’s article, but only after five paragraphs of breathless allegations. All day long, top-of-the-hour news updates on TV and radio let the false impression stand.

But is Iran fully cooperating with the IAEA? No, but that doesn't necessarily mean we need to take down Tehran to prevent a nuclear holocaust, Horton insists:

The IAEA’s latest report does note that Iran has “not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.” Indeed, the agency’s frequent mentions of Iran’s “lack of full cooperation” is a big reason why US media reports portray Iran in ominous terms.

But here, too, US media frequently miss the point. Never mind that 118 nations around the world have signed a statement criticizing the IAEA’s “peaceful activities” conclusion as a departure from standard verification language. More broadly, Iran’s “lack of full cooperation” by itself is an outcome of Western bullying and propaganda.

The US and the UN, acting upon no legitimate authority whatsoever, have demanded that Iran submit to an Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement, which would ban any further enrichment on Iranian soil, as well as demanded they submit to an endless regime of IAEA inspections and questioning, based mostly on the “alleged studies” documents, which several sources have said are forgeries posing as a pilfered laptop of a dead Iranian nuclear scientist.

These separate, UN Security Council-mandated investigations have even demanded blueprints for Shahab 3 missiles – a subject far removed from hexafluoride gas or any legitimate IAEA function. In 2003, Iran voluntarily agreed to the extra burden of the unratified Additional Protocol during “good faith negotiations” with the so-called “E-3,” Britain, France, and Germany, acting on behalf of the US. When those negotiations broke down, Iran withdrew in 2006....

What this all adds up to is that there is really nothing Iran can do that will clear its name in the particular game the U.S. insists on playing:

Washington continues to apply to Iran the outrageous standard it used in the run-up to the Iraq war: an unfriendly nation must “prove” it doesn’t have dangerous weapons or a secret program to make them – or potentially face military action.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Warty||

    Good thing the PEECE CANITDAT won.

  • T||

    Gee, so the new administration is continuing the saber rattling of the previous administration?

    I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in here.

  • ||

    "The US and the UN, acting upon no legitimate authority whatsoever, have demanded that Iran submit to an Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement, which would ban any further enrichment on Iranian soil, as well as demanded they submit to an endless regime of IAEA inspections and questioning, based mostly on the “alleged studies” documents, which several sources have said are forgeries posing as a pilfered laptop of a dead Iranian nuclear scientist."

    What sources? The Iranian government? I don't know if these documents are frauds or not. But the fact that several unnamed sources say they are doesn't shed much light on the matter.

    "More broadly, Iran’s “lack of full cooperation” by itself is an outcome of Western bullying and propaganda."

    We are making them do it? If they really are peaceful and considering what happened to Saddam, you would think Iran would be going the extra mile to prove they are not making nukes.

    "Washington continues to apply to Iran the outrageous standard it used in the run-up to the Iraq war: an unfriendly nation must “prove” it doesn’t have dangerous weapons or a secret program to make them – or potentially face military action."

    Maybe if their President would stop talking about they are going to build a bomb and destroy Israel, they wouldn't face such a burden. Seriously, is there anything that Iran could do that would cause this guy to question them?

  • DJF||

    “”””Maybe if their President would stop talking about they are going to build a bomb and destroy Israel, they wouldn't face such a burden. Seriously, is there anything that Iran could do that would cause this guy to question them?”””

    Do you have a source for this?

    I have seen several quotes from Iran saying that the Zionist regime of Israel will end, but I have seem even more quotes from the US and Israel saying that the Islamic regime of Iran will end as well. Sounds like competing quotes about regime change.

  • ||

    This is what I came to say. The reason they are treated differently is because they openly plan on wiping Israel off the map. It's practically their official foreign policy. I wouldn't let them even build it for energy. If it was up to me they would have to start building windmills.

  • DJF||

    So the Iranians don’t like Zionist Israel and the Israelis don’t like Islamic Iran and both talk about regime change for the other. So why is it bad for Iran to talk about getting rid of the Israeli regime but good for the Israelis to talk about getting rid of the Iranian regime?

    Personally I don’t want to live in either place and if the people living in those countries want to change things then its up to them.

  • Leroy||

    Iran does not talk about getting rid of the Israeli regime, they talk about wiping the Israelis off the face of the earth.

    Regime change =/= genocide

  • Sean Healy||

    The only reason Israelis give Iran a second thought is because Iranian foreign policy is committed to attacking Israel and ultimately destroying it through Hizballah, Hamas and, someday, nukes.

  • Fluffy||

    We are making them do it? If they really are peaceful and considering what happened to Saddam, you would think Iran would be going the extra mile to prove they are not making nukes.

    No, John.

    We're bullying the IAEA.

    The NPT grants every nation who has signed it the right to a domestic nuclear energy program. It also requires all signatories to respect the right of all other signatories to a domestic nuclear energy program.

    Part of having a domestic nuclear energy program is enriching your own fuel.

    We have decided to spit in the face of our treaty obligations and Iran's treaty rights and demand that Iran, and NO OTHER COUNTRY, sign an additional agreement forcing them to allow other nations to enrich their fuel and not enrich it themselves.

    Since they have refused to do this, we have forced the IAEA to insert language in their report asserting that Iran "not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." Because the only thing the IAEA would consider "cooperation" is turning enrichment over to other nations. Because that would then "permit the Agency to confirm" that Iran wasn't misusing its enriched stockpile, because it wouldn't have one.

    Why is the IAEA doing this? Because the current function of the IAEA is to continue to move the goalposts, so that Iran always looks noncompliant even if it's in full compliance with its actual treaty obligations. The task assigned to the IAEA at this point is to create whatever standard of "cooperation" the US demands to justify sanctions and, eventually, war. That's it.

  • ||

    Yes. We are totally picking on them. We don't treat Iran the way we treat Canada or Brazil. Why do you think we do that? Do you think there is no reason to believe Iran is a threat to anyone? Should be treat them the same way we do Canada?

  • Fluffy||

    If we believe Iran is a threat to anyone, we should withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  • ||

    Why?

  • The Gobbler||

    I agree with John. There's no reason to withdraw.

    Iran has been at war with the USA and the West since 1979.

  • ||

    Iran has been at war with the USA and the West since 1979.

    No, the Iranian people have been at war with the USA and the West since 1953 when the US overthrew their democratically elected governement and installed the Shah who then embarked on a campaign to "modernize" (with Stalinist level repression) the country.

    When was the last time that Iran overthrew the US government and installed a leader who tried to suppress almost all of the nation's traditions?

    And John wonders why the Iranians don't trust the intentions of the US government.

  • Fluffy||

    Because all of this pearl-clutching and fainting over Iran's "non-cooperation" and Iran's "proliferation" and so forth is disingenuous bullshit in most cases and outright lies in others.

    We have absolutely no right to use noncompliance with treaty oligations as a pretext for sanctions and war when we're in open defiance of the same treaty.

    We have no right to sign a treaty with a given nation granting them certain treaty rights, and then to turn around and demand sanctions via the Security Council when they exercise those rights.

    If we want to be in the right in our dispute with Iran, we have two choices:

    1. Obey the NPT [this would make the dispute go away]

    2. Withdraw from the NPT [which would eliminate all of our own treaty obligations and let us do whatever the fuck we want]

  • ||

    I would also note that it is not just the US who is bullying the IAEA. Europe is as well. Are they run by neocons now? Or maybe they think that Iran is not exactly peaceful?

  • Fuck!||

    We have decided to spit in the face of our treaty obligations and Iran's treaty rights and demand that Iran, and NO OTHER COUNTRY, sign an additional agreement forcing them to allow other nations to enrich their fuel and not enrich it themselves.

    Signed by who and when? By the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini, President Akmedinjihad, who?

  • ||

    """If they really are peaceful and considering what happened to Saddam, you would think Iran would be going the extra mile to prove they are not making nukes.""

    Can't prove a negative. No matter what they do (assuming they complied) will never be enough. They could show you every facility they have and the response could be bullshit, you have hidden facilites. If they took us to hidden facilites, we could always claim they have others.

  • ||

    "late last week a group of Marxist holy warrior exiles called the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, working with the very same neoconservatives who sponsored Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress – which manufactured so much of the propaganda that convinced the American people to support the invasion of that country – accused the Iranian government of building a secret nuclear enrichment facility buried deep in tunnels near Qazvin...."

    First, the US totally fucked over the MEK in Iraq. So I would hardly call them US allies. And second, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It is not like the IEA is acting on it or anything.

  • DJF||

    “””First, the US totally fucked over the MEK in Iraq””

    Yeah, the organization that the US had declared a terrorist organization. And then let go. The same terrorist organization that the US used to justify invading Iraq because Iraq was suppose to be harboring terrorists.

  • ||

    I actually was involved with the surrender of the MEK. We took all of their arms and kicked them out of Iraq. They had no where to go. They became refugees. They were scattered across the four winds. Many of them ended up going to other countries illegally. We didn't kill them. But we totally screwed them over.

  • DJF||

    So you let escape a group of Marxist Islamic terrorists who had murdered Americans? A group who had fought along side Saddam So you are a terrorist supporter and a supporter of Saddam.

    So much for the war on terror.

  • ||

    No. I didn't let them escape. That decision was a bit above my pay grade. And further, what was the US going to do with them? Iraq didn't want them. They surrendered so we couldn't just kill them. What would you suggest.

    And further, they only time they ever killed Americans was 40 years ago in their campaigns against the Shah. That seems a bit dated to be holding a grudge about it now.

  • DJF||

    So you were just following orders.

    And when did murder get a statue of limitation?

  • ||

    Also a bunch of them are still held in camps in Iraq. They are a real problem. No one knows what to do with them.

  • Rrabbit||

    There is that alien concept of a fair trial.

  • ||

    accused the Iranian government of building a secret nuclear enrichment facility buried deep in tunnels near Qazvin

    Not following this in detail, but I think this is the same group that outed another secret enrichment site, which was confirmed. Which is kind of credibility enhancing.

    And the satellite photos show the Iranians with some kind of facility under a mountain. Which is suspicious.

    Put this in the context of the Iranian nuclear program generally (this wouldn't be the first secret enrichment site, you don't need any secret enrichment sites for nuclear power, etc., etc.), throw in the political agenda of the IAEA (make itself look as useful and effective as possible) and the Obamatrons (appease the mullahs, avoid conflict), and I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, pending confirmation/rebuttal.

  • DJF||

    What secrets site? The Iranians followed the treaty and announced the so-called secret site more then six months before it was ready to receive fissionable material.

    As to why they would not announce it earlier, when you have a bunch of Americans and Israelis repeatedly saying that they think Iran should be bombed then I wouldn’t announce it before I was required too either

  • ||

    More importantly, can you have a more evil name than "Marxist holy warrior exiles called the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq"?

    Maybe toss in a "peoples' republic" or a "democratic."

  • The Gobbler||

    But if they conclude their full name with Consumer Protection Act, the world will love them.

  • ||

    "The IAEA’s latest report does note that Iran has “not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.” Indeed, the agency’s frequent mentions of Iran’s “lack of full cooperation” is a big reason why US media reports portray Iran in ominous terms."

    That seems reasonable. The IAEA is saying that they don't know where all of the material being producing is going. So we can't say for sure they are not building a bomb. That is not good. Why is it so hard for the Iranians to account for where the stuff is going? If it is all going for peaceful purposes why hasn't Iran made fools of the US by accounting to the IAEA for all of the material? If Iran is not building a bomb and being unfairly bullied by the US and Europe, you would think accounting for all of the uranium and showing that it is going for peaceful purposes would be the first thing they would do. What a propaganda coup that would be. But they don't.

    Is this guy on the Iranian payroll?

  • Fluffy||

    The IAEA is saying that they don't know where all of the material being producing is going.

    That's actually not what they're saying.

    Did you completely miss this part of the report?

    On September 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a new paper on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement which reported that the agency has “continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any military or other special purpose.”

    They've totally accounted for the fuel.

    The IAEA is saying that since Iran refuses to let other nations perform the enrichment of its fuel - a demand the IAEA has absolutely no right to make - the Agency feels they aren't being cooperative.

  • ||

    Why does Iran care if other countries enrich the fuel? Why go to all of this trouble and give the war mongering Americans and Israelis and excuse to bomb if they really have nothing to hide? So what if it is unfair? If Iran is truly peaceful, letting Russia enrich their uranium for them sounds like a small price to pay to avoid war.

  • DJF||

    If you think the Russians are so great then you would not mind if the Russians took over US nuclear power plants.

  • Fluffy||

    Well, for one thing, I'm sure Iran is pretty confident that if they turn over their fuel for enrichment they'll never get it back.

    And you know what? I agree. That's exactly what would happen.

    You know why the US doesn't want Brazil to enrich Iran's fuel? Because they're afraid Brazil might actually give it back.

    Our entire offer to have fuel enriched abroad is a pretext to get the material out of Iran and then come up with 10,000 bullshit reasons why it can't be sent back. Or to have some 3rd party nation do the same thing on our behalf.

    And you know that's what would happen.

    Since we've defied our NPT obligations to this point, why should Iran believe for a second that we wouldn't continue to do so?

    Iran at one point planned to build nuke plants and buy enriched fuel abroad. And you know what we did? We did everything we could to make it impossible for them to buy fuel abroad. So they said, "Fuck you then, we'll do it ourselves." I would have done the same thing.

  • ||

    The barbaric takeover of the U.S. Embassy stands unavenged. It was this unpunished act that emboldened the U.S.'s enemies to strike against us for the last 20 years. This is the casus belli. Withdraw the army from constabulary duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and strike the enemy that truly wronged us. Parthia Delenda Est.

  • Fluffy||

    When Afghanistan was sheltering a mass murderer of Americans, we invaded and occupied their entire country and still occupy it today.

    Since that's the standard that the US applies to the sheltering of mass murderers, we got off pretty easy for sheltering the Shah.

  • T||

    You and your moral equivalence, Fluffy. The Shah was our mass murderer and he only killed foreigners, so that doesn't count.

  • Bramblyspam||

    Silly me, I though the casus belli was when the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, and installed a puppet dictator who set up a torturing police state.

    Small wonder that the Iranian students were pissed off at us, and acted accordingly when they finally got the shah out of the way.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Why are there more concerns about Iran having nuclear weapons than Israel having nuclear weapons?

  • Alice Bowie||

    And the funny part is that Israel will probably use it first...in self defense.

  • ||

    Israel doesn't sponsor international terrorist organizations and threaten to nuke its neighbors?

  • ||

    Yes, it does.

  • ||

    It has also successfully effected the confiscation of billions and billions of bucks from american taxpayers.

    Israel is, itself, a scummy, socialist cess pool. A murderous, violent socialist cess pool.

  • ||

    They harbor religious extremist that will beat up a woman for getting on the wrong bus.

  • ||

    The same reason people don't worry about Japan or France. Because Israel is not insane. And because the other powers in the area, for all their public saber rattling, know that that Israel isn't interested in initiating a nuclear exchange.

  • The Gobbler||

    Israel doens't shoot it's female teen citizens dead in the street like dogs. They also don't sponser people who walk ito Pizza Hut and axplode a bomb vest.

  • Alice Bowie||

    They just rob land in the name of God.

  • Alice Bowie||

    This is what initially started it all. They forcefully took this land as a JEWISH state making everyone that is not JEWISH second class citizens.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    Ahh, the Bund meeting let out?

  • ||

    Are you calling the state of Israel a liar, then? Because that is their longstanding, explicit policy.

  • DJF||

    No, they run bulldozers over Americans and they use American made F-16’s to drop their bombs.

  • T||

    Any dumbass who sits in front of a moving armored bulldozer deserves to become a pancake.

    "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He might not have one"

  • Gray Ghost||

    O.K., then substitute Pakistan for Israel. If we're talking stability, Pakistan makes Iran's government look like Ben Stein. Pakistan's so unstable that the U.S. cannot go within it's "sovereign" territory to get UBL without fear the government will implode. And Pakistan and India sabre rattle all the time their respective governments need a boost of public opinion. Why are we O.K. with Pakistan having fissionable material and nuclear devices?

    Moreover, who actually thinks the Iranian nukes will be used against the U.S.? Against Israel, sure, but here? If a nuke goes off within the United States, does anyone think the U.S. wouldn't invade the rest of the Mideast in a manner to put Scipio Africanus's army to shame?

    Agreed it's not a great idea for Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I don't see the threat to the United States meriting yet another MidEast Muslim country invasion/bombing campaign, only this time with a country that does have significant terrorist assets.

    The U.S. has been fortunate so far in bombing countries (Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan) that, for some reason, don't want to fight back asymmetrically within the United States. Never could figure out why the Serbs didn't send over one or two dozen guys to emulate Malvo/Mohammed, only this time with military training and explosive caches. I mean, you're going to lose anyway, right?

    This is Israel's problem. Stand back and let them handle it.

  • Sean Healy||

    Israel has an external posture of nuclear ambiguity and an internal 'no first strike' posture.

  • Alice Bowie||

    It's amazing how sometimes words are stronger than action.

    All GWB had to do was NOT name countries as members of some Axis of Evil. North Korea and Iran probably wouldn't have built up their Nukes.

    Iran deserves all the heat their getting from what their president keeps saying.

  • Tman||

    All GWB had to do was NOT name countries as members of some Axis of Evil. North Korea and Iran probably wouldn't have built up their Nukes.

    You've said some dumb things here before, but that was pretty classic.

    Yes, North Korea wasn't going to make a nuke until Bush called them a bad name. Sounds logical.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Perhaps ACTION and not just simply words played a big part as well.

    - Bush Calls Iraq/Iran/N Korea axis of evil

    - Bush attacks with impunity the one (IRAQ) that he is 100% sure does not have Nukes

    - Bush hangs the president on www.youtube.com

    What did you expect Iran and North Korea to do?

  • Tman||

    Bush Calls Iraq/Iran/N Korea axis of evil

    And they are. They completely terrorize their own citizens and they support international terrorist groups. Bush was just calling it what it is.

    Bush attacks with impunity the one (IRAQ) that he is 100% sure does not have Nukes

    Impunity? Iraq had violated pretty much every cease fire requirement of GWI, and was in constant violation of pretty much everything they were supposed to do under the NPT and UNSC, not to mention what they had already done to the Kurds.

    Bush hangs the president on www.youtube.com

    Bush didn't hang him, Iraqi's hung him. Bush just made sure he got caught. Are you saying the Iraqi's shouldn't have executed him?

  • Alice Bowie||

    I'm saying that we new 100% he didn't have weapons and used him as an example.

    We should have never bothered with Iraq. And we shouldn't bother with the other two clowns either.

    I'm 100% sure we will not bother with Kim Dong II. We know fore SURE he has weapons and if push comes to shove, there will be millions of people dead in the pacific rim and WE WILL BE ONES TO BLAME.

    Iran, if they don't hurry up and test a Nuke soon, their will face the same fate as Iraq.

  • The Gobbler||

    This poster is really Barack Obama isn't it?

  • Tman||

    I'm saying that we new 100% he didn't have weapons and used him as an example.

    We did? Even Hand Blix didn't know that. Hans Blix at the UN in 2002- "

    Another matter – and one of great significance – is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.



    We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.

    We should have never bothered with Iraq. And we shouldn't bother with the other two clowns either.

    I disagree, but whatever.

    We know fore SURE he has weapons and if push comes to shove, there will be millions of people dead in the pacific rim and WE WILL BE ONES TO BLAME.

    Ah, your liberal bonafides come though. If Kim Jong levels Seoul, IT'S THE US'S FAULT.

    Liberal Moral sophistry. DISGUSTING.

    Iran, if they don't hurry up and test a Nuke soon, their will face the same fate as Iraq.

    Read the Totten interview below for further details as to this.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I like u...You're funny

  • ||

    On the subject of Iran generally, I don't think there's any doubt that Iran is at war with us, right now. I don't think there's any doubt that they sponsor, fund, supply, etc. the people who are killing American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. If that is warlike, I don't know what is.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Iran selling arms to A-rabs is no different that US selling Apache Helicopters to Israel.

  • ||

    This is what I was thinking in response to "Israel doesn't sponsor international terrorist organizations and threaten to nuke its neighbors?".

    "yeah, isreal doesn't sponsor terrorism, they apply for sponsorship."

    But, oh, they're not Terrorists, so it's cool. Arm 'em up!

  • DJF||

    The biggest supplier of money and men to Afghanistan and Iraq is Saudi Arabia. The country that the US government has sold billions of dollars of weapons.

  • ||

    Iran's support for international terrorism and the war against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq goes far beyond arms sales.

    They supply training, pay bounties for each dead American, a safe haven, etc. etc.

  • DJF||

    Do you have any evidence for this outside of the insane ranting of neo-con editorial writers?

    Iran is Shi’a and the Taliban are Sunni. The Taliban attack and murder Sunni’s

  • DJF||

    Correction

    Iran is Shi’a and the Taliban are Sunni. The Taliban attack and murder Shia’s. S

  • ||

    Actually, the Taliban attack and murder all infidels.

    The Shia are, by definition, infidels so they get killed automatically. Sunnis are killed selectively as required to "protect religious purity".

  • Kolohe||

    Cooperation between Iranian secret service and the Taliban would go against the grain, but it would not be a logically impossiblity to any greater extent than the Imperialist / Social Democracy / Communist alliance against the Nazi's was.

  • Tman||

    There seems to be a misconception in this post about what the position of the IAEA actually is in regards to Iran's nuclear program.

    So, I will link their own report and you can judge for yourself.

    Here are some of the main points-

    2. On 9 June 2010, the Security Council adopted resolution 1929 (2010), in which the Council,
    inter alia:
    • Affirmed that Iran has failed to meet the requirements of the Board of Governors and to
    comply with Security Council resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and
    1803 (2008);
    • Affirmed that Iran shall, without further delay, take the steps required by the Board in its
    resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82;
    • Further affirmed that Iran shall, without further delay, take the steps required in paragraph 2
    of resolution 1737 (2006) (i.e. to suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities as
    well as work on all heavy water related activities);
    • Reaffirmed that Iran shall cooperate fully with the IAEA on all outstanding issues,
    particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions of the
    Iranian nuclear programme, including by providing access to all sites, equipment, persons
    and documents requested by the Agency;
    Page 2
    • Decided that Iran shall, without delay, comply fully and without qualification with its
    Safeguards Agreement, including through the application of modified Code 3.1 of the
    Subsidiary Arrangements; called upon Iran to act strictly in accordance with the provisions
    of, and to ratify promptly, the Additional Protocol; and reaffirmed that, in accordance with
    Articles 24 and 39 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, Iran’s Safeguards Agreement and its
    Subsidiary Arrangements, including modified Code 3.1, cannot be amended or changed
    unilaterally by Iran, and noted that there is no mechanism in the Agreement for the
    suspension of any of the provisions in the Subsidiary Arrangements;
    • Reaffirmed that, in accordance with Iran’s obligations under previous resolutions to suspend
    all reprocessing, heavy water related and enrichment related activities, Iran shall not begin
    construction on any new uranium enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water related facility
    and shall discontinue any ongoing construction of any such facility;
    • Requested the Director General to communicate to the Security Council all reports from the
    Director General on the application of safeguards in Iran; and
    • Requested a report from the Director General, within 90 days, on whether Iran has
    established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in resolution
    1737 (2006), as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by
    the Board and with other provisions of resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008)
    and 1929 (2010).
  • Fluffy||

    The UN Security Council has no authority to demand that Iran take any action with regard to their nuclear activities that contradicts the requirements of the NPT, since every member of the Security Council is a signatory to the NPT.

    I'd tell the Security Council to fuck off, too, in Iran's place.

  • Tman||

    The UN Security Council has no authority to demand that Iran take any action with regard to their nuclear activities that contradicts the requirements of the NPT

    Whether this is true or not, and I don't think it is, according to the IAEA Iran hasn't complied with the requirements of the NPT either.

    What's your point?

  • Fluffy||

    Iran is currently in full compliance with its written NPT obligations.

    They aren't in compliance with Security Council resolutions, but those resolutions have no legal force. Israel is in defiance of more UN resolutions than anyone else, and nobody gives a damn [rightly].

    The US, on the other hand, is openly defying its NPT obligations. The treaty obligates us to render all assistance to any signatory that wants to develop domestic nuclear power. Are we doing that with Iran right now? Have we done that for the last ten years?

  • Tman||

    Iran is currently in full compliance with its written NPT obligations

    No, they aren't. Go read the report I listed above again.

  • Fluffy||

    I read your blockquote, and it talks about Security Council demands, and an additional NPT protocol that your QUOTE ITSELF ADMITS Iran has never ratified.

    "You are defying a part of the treaty you never ratified! That means you aren't in compliance!" Whatever.

  • Tman||

    Fluffy, you just said a few minutes ago that "Iran is currently in full compliance with its written NPT obligations."

    Now you're saying that Iran has never ratified the NPT.

    Those goalposts must be heavy.

  • Juice||

    Wow, Tman, I hope you're just playing dumb.

  • ||

    I always laugh when I hear the pro-war crowd invoke the U.N. to justify their position. Ordinarily, the only nice thing they have to say about the U.N. is that those blue helmets would make nice rifle targets. They certainly don't accept that the U.N. has any authority over a sovereign nation...on any other day that is.

  • ||

    "I'd tell the Security Council to fuck off, too, in Iran's place."

    The UN Security Council has absolute authority to then authorize the Americans who ever else wants to join to bomb the shit out of you to.

    Again, if you have nothing to hide, why would you risk war? That makes no sense.

  • DJF||

    Who says they are hiding anything, there are IAEA inspectors in Iran right now.

  • Pip||

    They have a history of hiding enrichment facilities. Go read a newspaper sometine.

  • DJF||

    There is no requirement under the nuclear non proliferation treaty to announce any nuclear faculty until it is within six months of receiving fissionable material. And the Iranians did announce it before the six months period was up.

  • Saddam Hussein||

    "That makes no sense."

    No shit.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Iran is not crazy or suicidal as our propaganda leads us to believe.

    They created their own problems with their silly Rhetoric.

  • Tman||

    I would highly recommend reading this Michael Totten interview with Jonathan Spyer for an insightful view of "The Perfect Iranian Storm on the Horizon". Spyer "has a PhD in International Relations, he fought in Lebanon during the summer war of 2006, then went back to Lebanon as a civilian on a second passport."

    You won't find a more disturbing perspective about the Middle East, so you've been warned.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Look. This is a problem that started with mistakes made in 1947 that can't be corrected today.

    Best just leave the Middle-East alone. Best to do NOTHING.

  • Alice Bowie||

    The article is an Israeli point of view.

    Let me ask u Tman, if Russia came here and overtook our military and moved in a bunch of Martians into our land and told us that this is now Mars-Land, would you not do the same as the palestinians?

    Do you think Americans would live as second class citizens while the Martians and their children prosper?

    Or, do you think that there would be a group of Americans that would make the Martians life a living hell of every living minute of their life?

  • ||

    What the hell does any of that have to do with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah takeover of Southern Lebanon?

  • Alice Bowie||

    "It's all the same, only the names have changed..."

  • Pip||

    You sure are taking a long lunch today...

  • ||

    ""What the hell does any of that have to do with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah takeover of Southern Lebanon?""

    That's so 1980s

  • Tman||

    The article is an Israeli point of view.

    Yep, sure is.

    if Russia came here and overtook our military and moved in a bunch of Martians into our land and told us that this is now Mars-Land, would you not do the same as the palestinians?

    That is not even remotely close to describing what happened in the land of Palestine. You can't sum up over 2000 years of volatile land grabs and violent upheavels with an imaginary Russian/Martian analogy. Jews have a historical, cultural and biological connection to Jersaelum.

    Your analogy pretends that all of the current crisis emerged from the British mandate, yet you ignore the thousands of years of history that have enormous influence in the outcome of the current crisis.

    Your analogy is completely bunk.

  • Alice Bowie||

    That's your opinion.

    If it'll help, replace Martians with American Indians (rose from the dead).

    The facts is that this world may come to an END as a result of "Jews having a historical, cultural and biological connection to Jersaelum." This makes Jews that feel this way just as much fundamentalist religious crazies as the Muslims that are extremist.

    We haven't had a minute of peace since 1947. That should say something.

    I don't care that the UN agreed Palestine should be come a Jewish State. The people that lived there did NOT agree to this. And that makes this LAND THEFT.

  • Tman||

    That's your opinion.

    No, it's a fact. Your analogy presupposed "Martians" coming to earth under Russian authority, assuming they had no connection to the land in question. This is just wrong.

    If it'll help, replace Martians with American Indians (rose from the dead).

    It doesn't.

    The facts is that this world may come to an END as a result of "Jews having a historical, cultural and biological connection to Jersaelum."

    The more you talk the crazier you sound. It's like we've unleashed your inner Kracken.

    We haven't had a minute of peace since 1947. That should say something.

    Yes, because prior to 1947 (really? WWII Hello??) , everything was like roses and Unicorns.

    I don't care that the UN agreed Palestine should be come a Jewish State. The people that lived there did NOT agree to this. And that makes this LAND THEFT.

    Alice, if you're serious in undertanding the history of Palestine I would suggest your broaden your research. This is a good place to start.

    http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm

  • Alice Bowie||

    I want to make one thing clear. I support Israel today. I believe that after 70 years, they have a RIGHT to keep this land. Many generations of Israelis have been born there and they are good people that have a right to the land now.

    However, that land grab in 1947 was wrong. Or should I say that the world is no longer tolerant of hostile land grabbing.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    Land grab? I think it was British land at the time. Should London declare war?

  • Alice Bowie||

    Look, you are not wrong if you wanna look at this as a simple 'landlord tenant' issue. The landlord decided to give the property to another tenant instead of the tenants that are already there. This, in the past, leads to unfortunate things. That's why we had tenant regulations for a while there.

    I'm saying, in a very selfish manner, I gain NOTHING from the JEWISH STATE. Why must I be a casualty of WAR between the Jews and the Muslims?

  • ||

    """I believe that after 70 years, they have a RIGHT to keep this land. ""

    I support Israel and I call bullshit on the "right to keep". No one has a right to keep, it has always been, and will always be about who wins a war. Israel has the responsibility to defend if they want to keep it. If someone defeats them, the land goes to the victor.

  • Spazmo||

    I want to make one thing clear. I support Israel today. I believe that after 70 years, they have a RIGHT to keep this land.I want to make one thing clear. I support Israel today. I believe that after 70 years, they have a RIGHT to keep this land.

    No amount of time transforms stolen property into legitimately acquired property.

  • Spazmo||

    I want to make one thing clear. I support Israel today. I believe that after 70 years, they have a RIGHT to keep this land.I want to make one thing clear. I support Israel today. I believe that after 70 years, they have a RIGHT to keep this land.

    No amount of time transforms stolen property into legitimately acquired property.

  • Fluffy||

    The State of Israel set up a land court to adjudicate disputes in Jerusalem and then appointed as judge an ex-general who now openly admits that he hates Palestinians and was doing everything he could to rule in favor of Jews because the Torah demands that the Jews take every last inch of the Holy Land.

    That's Israeli justice for you. That actually summarizes the entire state of Israel very nicely.

    If I was a Palestinian I wouldn't rest until the state of Israel returned to its 1948 borders, either.

  • Tman||

    Funny, but that would actually give Israel more land then it has now.

    http://www.gregfelton.com/middle/2007_11_05_Palestinemap.gif

  • ||

    No, the Jewish state was never granted the whole of the British mandate of Palestine (the first picture on the left).

  • Tman||

    True, but Israel was granted more land in 1948 in Palestine proper than it has now.

  • ||

    That is not supported by the maps in the link you furnished.

  • Tman||

    You are right, I was wrong about the 1949 borders. They would not have "more" land. if returned to said borders. I guess the change in territories around Jerusalem threw me off, but you are right-the non-Israel parts today are smaller than the Mandate. I guess the Palestinians should feel lucky after 1967, because here's what those borders were.

    http://www.passia.org/palestin.....srael.html

    Ultimately I don't see the big difference between the borders today and the ones in 1949, unless you use the shitty map I posted above, which was stupid.

  • ||

    In all this conjecture and caterwauling, is there any actual proof that Iran is building bombs? And if they are, why doesn't Iran have the same rights as any other sovereign nation? And please, try to come up with something other than hysterical nonsense about "mad mullahs".

  • Old Man With Candy||

    "That should say something."

    It does indeed. Since we didn't have a minute of peace before 1947, it says, "Alice Bowie doesn't know shit about history."

  • Alice Bowie||

    My mommy told me to stay away from men like you.

  • Kim Jong Il||

    The IAEA does a wondelfur verifying weapons programs.

  • Kim Jong Il||

    The IAEA does wondelfur work identifying and verifying weapons programs.

  • Ayatollah Khomeini||

    We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

    Let me explain in layman terms what I meant when I said that: We have been at war over interpretations over Mohamed's (PBUH) nephew and the 12th Iman with Sunni Muslims for a thousand years. Once we build our bomb and explode it in Israel causing the start of WWIII the 12th Imam will appear and prove to the Sunnis we have the correct interpretation of Islam and the 12th Imam is going to kick infidel ass so we don't care if you infidels destroy our nation because we will be martyrs and receive many virgins in paradise.

  • Alice Bowie||

    That's hilarious

  • Kim Jong Il||

    Yep, you Westerner are crazy because you think I'm crazy. I'm crazy like a fox and much smarter than your Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter because I trick them into giving me what I need to make bomb with UN inspectors crawling all over me.

    You Westerners no understand I GOD to my people, I like being GOD to my people and do not want to get blown up. Those Iranians mullahs, they really are crazy religious zealots. You be stupid to let them fool you and UN like I did.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Everyone here is pretty smart.

    Consider the following:

    If Iran Bombs Israel, Iran will be destroyed and occupied by USA or somebody. So why would they do that? And please don't bring up virgins in Burkas. Let's leave religion and Hokus Pokus out of this. Iran suicidal tendencies are greatly exaggerated and is American/Israeli Propaganda. I just don't see Iran making the first.

    Israel HAS to bomb Iran before they obtain Nukes. Or, they will never be able to Bomb them.

    The ONLY way to guarantee peace between Israel and Iran is if Iran has a bomb.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Remember, the world is not runned by religious people. It's run by intelligent people that don't believe in God at all. That includes the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims. They just use religion as it is the best rabble control one can have.

  • Atheist||

    Remember, the world is not runned by religious people.
    Not only is the world runned by them the world was ruined by them.

    Never mind the 100 million innocents killed by my fellow atheist like Stalin, Mao etc.... Religions have killed thousands.

    Once the world's atheist workers unite, we shall have world peace.

  • Holy Shit!||

    Let's leave religion and Hokus Pokus out of this. Iran suicidal tendencies are greatly exaggerated and is American/Israeli Propaganda.

    Leave religious hocus pocus out of the conversation about the country that perpetuates the 72 virgin theory? WOW! Just fucking WOW!

  • Alice Bowie||

    What about the country that perpetuates the "GOD gave me this LAND" theory. I think it is just as crazy and is exactly what provoked they 72 virgin people.

  • Imam Achmed Trent Lott Rauf||

    If only Hitler had won the war, we wouldn't have had all these problems for all these years.

  • Tman||

    The best was her comment about how "We haven't had a minute of peace since 1947."

    Sorry Alice, but you make statements as stupid as that and no one will take you seriously.

  • Alice Bowie||

    what i simply meant was the conflict we have with non-jewish mid-east people derives from the creation of Israel.

  • Tman||

    Seriously, just stop. The Israeli-Palestine issue could get solved tomorrow and we would still have an Al-qaeda problem.

    You might as well say it's about the oil. You'd still be wrong, but you wouldn't sound as stupid.

  • Saudi Prince||

    And we'd still have Iran's Shi'ite problem. Those fools believe Mohamed's (PBUH) nephew trumps Wahabism. We will bomb them ourselves with all the new military toys Obama has sold us.

  • Alice Bowie||


    The Israeli-Palestine issue could get solved tomorrow and we would still have an Al-qaeda problem.

    A problem we created. An organization we sponsored and armed.

  • Tman||

    We created al-qaeda?

    You mean the mujihadeen in Afghanistan during the 1980's, and we didn't "create" them. We just sent them stinger missiles.

    Seriously, you should quit while you're behind.

  • ||

    ""Seriously, just stop. The Israeli-Palestine issue could get solved tomorrow and we would still have an Al-qaeda problem.""

    I agree. But if we wouldn't have tipped the hand by supplying surface to air weapons, AQ might be Russias problem instead of ours.

  • Tman||

    AQ had nothing specifically to do with the Mujihadeen. Some former Mujihadeen became AQ, but most didn't. The idea that we "tipped their hand" is a fallacy. AQ didn't arise from the ashes of the Mujihadeen, they have way more in common with the Muslim brotherhood out of Egypt or even Hamas/Hezbollah, maybe even ansar al-islam.

    It's a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. The reality is that many of the mujihadeen became tribal leaders in Afghan-Pak theater and many of those leaders are helping us fight the Taliban.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THANK YOU +>9000

  • Richard Nous||

    Ahmad Shah Massoud was was killed by al Qaeda two days before 9-11 2001 for a reason.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

  • Jimmy Carter||

    Thank me for the mullah's peaceful nuclear intentions because I helped undermine the Shah who started their nuclear program in the first place.

    The Shah didn't want nuclear power for energy he wanted a bomb so he could blow up Israel. I'm really proud of my foreign policy as it saved the world many wars in that part of the world.

  • Alice Bowie||

    This is so not true. During the Shah's tenure Iran was no enemy with Israel. Look it up.

  • Jimmy Carter||

    How dare you! I am a Nobel Laureate like Paul Krugman. Nobody disagrees with him and gets away with it.

    Apologize now or I will fart in your general direction.

  • Alice Bowie||

    And boy those peanut farts can be pretty smelly.

  • Jimmy Carter||

    I accept the fact you are apologizing by admitting my gasbaging is far superior to yours.

    You are no match for a Nobel Laureate like myself. I know Paul Krugman madam, and I can tell you, you are no Paul Krugman.

    Now pull my finger!

  • ||

    Well, I must say I find the Antiwar.com theory that we are relentlessly bullying Iran somewhat farcical. Iran doesn't feel the least bit bullied by press releases and Stern Memos, I'm sure. Any sanctions that we might have are nothing more than a mechanism for shifting trade to Russia and China; I doubt there is a single thing that has actually been blocked by these sanctions.

    Help me out here: exactly how are we bullying Iran?

  • Alice Bowie||

    It's mostly words.

    It's a miracle we haven't attacked them yet. I can only guess that our CIA is telling us that Iran will be a hard fight or they already have something or we don't know what they have.

  • Dissidents||

    No need to occupy Iran. Getting rid of the revolutionary guard with a MOAB would do the trick and we'll take it from there. We understand now the Shah had us looking Westward and that he killed around 2000 like those we have in charge now. We condemn our parents for the life they gave us under this brutal religious dictatorship.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What a crock of shit! When did 'pro-peace' come to mean 'allowing the religious fanatics who are dogmatic enemies of America and her allies have nukes and continue sponsoring terrorism'? Non-interventionists are probably the most prowar people around. Until libertarianism unhitches from this BS, it can't have national power.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement