IAEA December 2006 report: Iran in serious non-compliance

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
July 24, 2008 Update on page 4 of this thread.


IAEA Director General December 2006 report on Iran non-compliant nuclear activities

Some highlights:

<blockquote>quote:
The Security Council,

Reiterating its serious concern over the many reports of the IAEA Director General and resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors related to Iran?s nuclear programme

Reiterating its serious concern that the IAEA Director General?s report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran?s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear materials or activities in Iran


Reiterating its serious concern over the IAEA Director General?s report of 28 April 2006 (GOV/2006/27) and its findings, including that, after more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran?s nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, and that the IAEA is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran

Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the IAEA Director General?s reports of 8 June 2006 (GOV/2006/38), 31 August 2006 (GOV/2006/53) and 14 November 2006 (GOV/2006/64), Iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required of it by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran?s refusal to take these steps

Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear programme and, in this context, by Iran?s continuing failure to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors and to comply with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security

Acting under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Affirms that Iran shall without further delay take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to
build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions;

2. Decides, in this context, that Iran shall without further delay suspend the following proliferation sensitive nuclear activities:
(a) all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA; and
(b) work on all heavy water-related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, also to be verified by the IAEA

Decides that all States shall report to the Committee within 60 days of the adoption of this resolution

Expresses the conviction that the suspension set out in paragraph 2 above as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA Board of Governors, would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution
that guarantees Iran?s nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes, underlines the willingness of the international community to work positively for such a solution, encourages Iran, in conforming to the above provisions, to re-engage with the international community and with the IAEA, and stresses that such engagement will be beneficial to Iran

Requests within 60 days a report from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in this resolution, as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all
the steps required by the IAEA Board and with the other provisions of this resolution, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration</blockquote>


In other news..

Iran Announces Installation of Centrifuges to Boost Uranium Enrichment

<blockquote>quote:
TEHRAN ? Iran announced Monday that it was pressing ahead with their plan to install 3,000 atomic centrifuges and to achieve industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel

"We are moving towards production of nuclear fuel which needs 3,000 centrifuges and more than that ... This plan is going ahead and is moving towards completion," government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham told a weekly news conference.

"We have not pulled out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But if they (the West) try to create obstacles then we will change our path as well," he said.</blockquote>



I'm unsure how the international community can communicate more clearly and effectively to Iran that their current path is unacceptable and destructive. Looks like the end of Feb 2007 will be the deadline for Iran to remedy their non-compliance with IAEA. Unfortunately, it appears from Mr. Elham's statements that Iran is already set on this path and cares nothing for either the IAEA or the NPT. :(
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
I have said before and will say again that Iran is going for the bomb. I expect the people attacking me over this to come up with some reason for the IAEA and I look forward to seeying the explanation. Again, I will say I support Israel taking out Iran's nuclear reactors and keeping them unusable until a new leader is in place who is west friendly.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Don't worry, I'm sure the international community will find a way to ignore this.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
They'd be stupid not to go for the bomb now. They saw what happenned to their neighbor because it didn't have a nuclear deterrent. Also, the US now has its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is unlikely to be support for a military action against Iran.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Does anybody get a vision of the Aliens in the movie "Mars Attacks"? I get this vision of the Iranian officials getting word of this and laughing hysterically at an attempt to broker a peaceful solution to this while they continue on their merry way towards nuclear weapon capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Attacks%21

 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Of course they are going for the bomb and Bush screwed up so badly in Iraq we can't do anything to stop them.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Of course they are going for the bomb and Bush screwed up so badly in Iraq we can't do anything to stop them.

Your statement suggests that it is the USA's responsibility alone to handle these types of international situations.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,408
8,464
136
Originally posted by: RichardE
I have said before and will say again that Iran is going for the bomb. I expect the people attacking me over this to come up with some reason for the IAEA and I look forward to seeying the explanation. Again, I will say I support Israel taking out Iran's nuclear reactors and keeping them unusable until a new leader is in place who is west friendly.

Dems have been telling us for the past year that the IAEA is happy with Iran. This article must have been fabricated by those evil neo-cons.

Seriously though, I stand firm on the need for us to destroy Iran. Nuclear proliferation needs to stop with North Korea, their radical allies in the Middle East must never be allowed to follow through.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: RichardE
I have said before and will say again that Iran is going for the bomb. I expect the people attacking me over this to come up with some reason for the IAEA and I look forward to seeying the explanation. Again, I will say I support Israel taking out Iran's nuclear reactors and keeping them unusable until a new leader is in place who is west friendly.

Dems have been telling us for the past year that the IAEA is happy with Iran. This article must have been fabricated by those evil neo-cons.

Seriously though, I stand firm on the need for us to destroy Iran. Nuclear proliferation needs to stop with North Korea, their radical allies in the Middle East must never be allowed to follow through.

Better lace up your boots. Go get 'em cowboy!

Oh, you mean YOU don't wanna go do it? But you want other men and women like yourself to go sacrifice themselves for your firm stance. Gotcha. :thumbsup:
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,637
9,745
136
Scary. Iraq co-operates with inspectors and gets annihilated. Makes you wonder what we're going to do to Iran.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: smack Down
Of course they are going for the bomb and Bush screwed up so badly in Iraq we can't do anything to stop them.

Your statement suggests that it is the USA's responsibility alone to handle these types of international situations.

Well unfortunately our EU homeboy's and China + Russia don't seem to give a flying f***.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Nice spin. Looks like Karl Rove now has the time to write press releases for the IAEA.

Particularly wrt the NPT, which the Iranians agreed to, and with which the Iranians are in compliance, and not the "additional protocols" something the Bush Admin is trying to shove down their throats... something they never agreed to... basic moving the goalposts routine. I suspect that if they comply, there'll just be more additional protocols, and more...

After attacking the Iranians, the Bush Admin will finally have a rationale for staying in Iraq- to keep the Iranians from taking over, natch...

Can't wait for all the squealing from the young neocon wannabees when they bring back the draft...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice spin. Looks like Karl Rove now has the time to write press releases for the IAEA.

Particularly wrt the NPT, which the Iranians agreed to, and with which the Iranians are in compliance, and not the "additional protocols" something the Bush Admin is trying to shove down their throats... something they never agreed to... basic moving the goalposts routine. I suspect that if they comply, there'll just be more additional protocols, and more...

After attacking the Iranians, the Bush Admin will finally have a rationale for staying in Iraq- to keep the Iranians from taking over, natch...

Can't wait for all the squealing from the young neocon wannabees when they bring back the draft...

Yes, the IAEA is now in the back pocket of the Bush admin.
It is amazing how Bush can be such an idiot yet an evil mastermind within your head at any given time.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Scary. Iraq co-operates with inspectors and gets annihilated. Makes you wonder what we're going to do to Iran.
Iraq only cooperated at the point of the sword. Everytime the sword was removed, they went back to the old shell shuffle game.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Does this honestly suprise anybody?

Does Jhhnn's defense of Iran's non-compliance surprise anyone either?

Iran will get theirs... i just hope the entire world steps up to the plate and does what needs to be done.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
They'd be stupid not to go for the bomb now. They saw what happenned to their neighbor because it didn't have a nuclear deterrent. Also, the US now has its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is unlikely to be support for a military action against Iran.

If the worlds more "questionable" regimes learned anything in the last 10 years as to how to survive U.S. imperialism, it is that complying with diplomatic agreements and disarming will get you destroyed (and worse), whereas sticking to your guns will only result in many empty threats.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: smack Down
Of course they are going for the bomb and Bush screwed up so badly in Iraq we can't do anything to stop them.
Your statement suggests that it is the USA's responsibility alone to handle these types of international situations.
Well unfortunately our EU homeboy's and China + Russia don't seem to give a flying f***.

Then where do all these UN "cease and desist" orders and threats of sanctions come from? Is the US the only country in the UN who has a problem with this? Are we the only ones pushing for sanctions?

You're not suggesting that the UN is all talk are you? ;)
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: RichardE
I have said before and will say again that Iran is going for the bomb. I expect the people attacking me over this to come up with some reason for the IAEA and I look forward to seeying the explanation. Again, I will say I support Israel taking out Iran's nuclear reactors and keeping them unusable until a new leader is in place who is west friendly.

Dems have been telling us for the past year that the IAEA is happy with Iran. This article must have been fabricated by those evil neo-cons.

Seriously though, I stand firm on the need for us to destroy Iran. Nuclear proliferation needs to stop with North Korea, their radical allies in the Middle East must never be allowed to follow through.

Better lace up your boots. Go get 'em cowboy!

Oh, you mean YOU don't wanna go do it? But you want other men and women like yourself to go sacrifice themselves for your firm stance. Gotcha. :thumbsup:

There's nothing wrong, per say, with non-military persons advocating use of force. The debate has long been settled taht civilians determine military policy - when to, or to, employ it.

To suggest that non-military persons cannot advocate it's use merely serves to put those type of decisions back into the hands of the military (i.e., only military persons can advocate its use etc).

Fern
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
The report back to the IAEA Director General is due at the end of February. As Iran makes the statement today they are pressing full steam ahead with 3000 centrifuges, it seems unlikely the IAEA report would be anything but very critical of Iran's activities. The question then is, what does the UN Security Council do? Another 180 days of negotiations with Russia and China to come up with more sanctions (which aren't working)? Or just punt and hope someone (US, Israel) takes military action?

I have a feeling that whatever happens will be not necessarily the expected thing. Perhaps a regime change in Iran will magically gain momentum. Or Israel will secretly strike Iran via intelligence resources and deny they did it. Or the US congress will secretly approve some specific military actions for the President to enact. In any case, March should prove interesting.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice spin. Looks like Karl Rove now has the time to write press releases for the IAEA.

Particularly wrt the NPT, which the Iranians agreed to, and with which the Iranians are in compliance, and not the "additional protocols" something the Bush Admin is trying to shove down their throats... something they never agreed to... basic moving the goalposts routine. I suspect that if they comply, there'll just be more additional protocols, and more...

After attacking the Iranians, the Bush Admin will finally have a rationale for staying in Iraq- to keep the Iranians from taking over, natch...

Can't wait for all the squealing from the young neocon wannabees when they bring back the draft...

You seem to be saying that the Iranians are IN compliance?

Got anything from El Baradi (sp?) to support that contention?

TIA,

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: RichardE
I have said before and will say again that Iran is going for the bomb. I expect the people attacking me over this to come up with some reason for the IAEA and I look forward to seeying the explanation. Again, I will say I support Israel taking out Iran's nuclear reactors and keeping them unusable until a new leader is in place who is west friendly.

Seems pretty reasonable to me to suggest that they are going for the "bomb" capabilities. If only because of the type of reactor they have chosen.

Strikes me as kinda of funny/odd that the rest of the world needs to rely on little 'ole Isreal to enforce its policy of non-proliferation.

Fern
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
The Iranians are going to be nuclear capable. Nothing can be done about it, partly because of Iraq, but also for some other reasons (logistics, economics and geopolitical) as well.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You seem to be saying that the Iranians are IN compliance?

Got anything from El Baradi (sp?) to support that contention?

Only the fact that he accused them of being in non-compliance with the additional protocols, and nothing more.

Do you think he'd let it pass if they weren't in compliance with the NPT agreements they signed?

Sometimes what isn't said has as much meaning as what is said... particularly wrt the IAEA and their recent alliance with the Bush Admin. First, the Admin threatened to have Baradei sacked with a no confidence vote, over the niger uranium forgeries, but after a personal and private meeting with Condi, he came out dancing to their tune... it's been hearts and flowers ever since...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You seem to be saying that the Iranians are IN compliance?

Got anything from El Baradi (sp?) to support that contention?

Only the fact that he accused them of being in non-compliance with the additional protocols, and nothing more.

Do you think he'd let it pass if they weren't in compliance with the NPT agreements they signed?

Sometimes what isn't said has as much meaning as what is said... particularly wrt the IAEA and their recent alliance with the Bush Admin. First, the Admin threatened to have Baradei sacked with a no confidence vote, over the niger uranium forgeries, but after a personal and private meeting with Condi, he came out dancing to their tune... it's been hearts and flowers ever since...
Denial suits you well.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Jaskalas said:

Seriously though, I stand firm on the need for us to destroy Iran.

paehorse74 said:

Iran will get theirs... i just hope the entire world steps up to the plate and does what needs to be done.

What define's "needs to be done"?

I have said this here before and I'll say iit again:

How do the movement conservitive warmongers reconcile their desire to turn Iran into a glass parking lot with their claims that the average Iranians would support us and our desire for regime change? I can't see their students demonstrating against the Ayatollah with signs supporting massive US bombing campaigns.

Should we believe these people and decide that this is all, in fact, an unavoidable "war" between two civilizations? A "war" so desperate that one civilization will eventually reign supreme and the other perish?If it is to be that kind of war, then it comes down to WHO will be willing to pay the greater price?.

Do you people really believe it will be the U.S.?

If so, what price does America & Americans have to pay to acheive such a conquest?