Full IAEA Report on Iran

By: Lowell
Published On: 2/23/2007 9:22:02 AM

Here it is, the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iran ("Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) in the Islamic Republic of Iran"), which was supposed to remain confidential but has been leaking like the Titanic post-iceberg.  Key conclusions:
*"Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and facilities, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with such material and facilities."

*"The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."

*"The Agency remains unable, however, to make further progress in its efforts to verify fully the past development of Iran's nuclear programme and certain aspects relevant to its scope and nature."

*"...the Agency is unable to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues through the implementation of the Additional Protocol."

*"Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities. Iran has continued with the operation of [Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant]. It has also continued with the construction of [Fuel Enrichment Plant], including the installation of cascades, and has transferred UF6 to FEP. Iran has also continued with its heavy water related projects. Construction of the IR-40 Reactor, and operation of the Heavy Water Production Plant, are continuing."

*"In contrast, there has been no indication of reprocessing related activities at any declared sites in Iran."

*"...it is necessary for Iran to enable the Agency, through maximum cooperation and transparency, to fully reconstruct the history of Iran's nuclear programme. Without such...cooperation and transparency, the Agency will not be able to provide assurances about the absence ofundeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran or about the exclusively peaceful nature of that programme."

So what next?  I tend to agree with Tom Friedman's proposed path to a solution:

Let's put a clear deal on the table: full diplomatic relations, security guarantees and thousands of student visas if Iran puts its nuclear program under U.N. inspection and stops supporting terrorism. If not: more sanctions and isolation. Such an offer would at least get us some leverage, unite us more with our allies outside Iran, energize our allies inside Iran and force some excruciating choices on Iran's leaders.

In other words, it's time for some serious negotiations using some serious carrots and some serious sticks.  What on earth are we waiting for?


Comments



Leaking like a three year old (PM - 2/23/2007 9:35:09 AM)
at the "Next exit 47 miles" sign.

Again, reality politics is the key.  Every time I hear slogans tumbling out of Condi's mouth I wonder -- is she visionless or just acting that way?



The key to me... (Rob - 2/23/2007 10:26:56 AM)
1000s of student visas.  I know the hard right (e.g., Virgil Goode) would hate this because of their (ahem) xenophobia, but this would create a wedge between the millions of young people and the regime.  They would want more student visas - more free flow for them to visit their families in the states - and would be tough for Iran's real rulers (the Ayatollahs) to say flat out "no."

Basically, any offer like that wedges the youth and other citizens from their rules - like visas, promises of sophisticated high-tech (low security) investment/jobs, etc. - would be a genius move.  And, of course, totally foreign to our not-so-genius President.



What on earth are we waiting for? (novamiddleman - 2/23/2007 10:33:48 AM)
China and Russia who will veto any real sanctions due to trade agreements with Iran


What do you suggest we do? (Lowell - 2/23/2007 10:34:31 AM)
n/t


Seems pretty good so far (novamiddleman - 2/23/2007 1:26:32 PM)
I actually like what we are doing.  Showing we mean business with some of the saber rattling.  Working with our allies to build a united front.  Actively participating in the negotiation process

""U.S and European diplomats said that they are pursuing a "dual track" diplomatic strategy -- pressing simultaneously for additional sanctions and renewed negotiations with Tehran -- but remained divided over how tough new sanctions should be.

The United States, Britain and France favor imposing a series of additional penalties against Iran, including a mandatory travel ban and additional asset freezes against some Iranian officials linked to the country's most sensitive nuclear programs. They also support measures including a ban on export credits. "We want to do it as soon as possible and to avoid the wrangling of last time. But we've got to get tougher sanctions than we have at the moment if we want real impact, and we're very realistic about how difficult that may be," a senior European official said.

A senior U.S. official said the United States is willing to forgo a tough resolution in exchange for the Security Council moving quickly to a unified agreement to raise the political stakes for Iran while avoiding a fight with the Russians.""

From the Post here

http://www.washingto...

Also more gray on the heart of the issue

""Thursday's six-page report concluded that "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities." The report provided no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, as President Bush asserts, but inspectors said Iran's lack of voluntary cooperation with its investigation made it impossible to rule out that such efforts were underway.""

___________________________________________________________

The idea floated has merit but would be very hard.  For example Iran doesn't view Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organziations and the United States and most of the West do.

The Post, BBC, Al-Jazera English all have tons of ideas and options. 



Michelle Bachmann (R-Rapture) Has Leaked the Double Secret Iran Plan (PM - 2/23/2007 3:45:57 PM)
http://www.startribu...

She fits right into this Administration:


***

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann claims to know of a plan, already worked out with a line drawn on the map, for the partition of Iraq in which Iran will control half of the country and set it up as a "a terrorist safe haven zone" and a staging area for attacks around the Middle East and on the United States.

She said this in a taped interview St. Cloud Times reporter Lawrence Schumacher, which is available as a podcast. (If you go to this link, look down on the right for "download Capitolcast.")

There are other interesting and provocative statements in the interview. But the most amazing is at the end, when the discussion turned to Iran and Iraq, Bachmann's reasons for sticking with the stay-until-victory camp, and her beliefs, stated as established fact, that Iran has reached an agreement to divide Iraq and set up a free-terrorism zone.

Here's the extended excerpt:

  "Iran is the trouble maker, trying to tip over apple carts all over Baghdad right now because they want America to pull out. And do you know why? It's because they've already decided that they're going to partition Iraq.

  And half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called?. the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I'm sorry, I don't have the official name, but it's meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There's already an agreement made.

  They are going to get half of Iraq and that is going  to be a terrorist safe haven zone where they can go ahead and bring  about more terrorist attacks in  the Middle East region and then to come against  the United States because we are their avowed enemy."

Bachmann did not say how she knew about this plan, nor with whom Iran has made this deal.



Treat all alike (Rebecca - 2/23/2007 6:07:43 PM)
Pakistan has a bomb. I read that Al-Qaeda has an new operation there. Are we going to bomb Pakistan?


The concept that one power should treat... (Lowell - 2/23/2007 8:51:14 PM)
all other powers equally violates pretty much every rule of international relations.  For instance, it's absurd to think that we should treat a tiny country like Belize the same as we treat Russia or China.  But be that as it may...

I believe that an unstable, autocratic country like Pakistan with nuclear weapons is potentially a grave danger to the world, particularly if General Musharaf is overthrown by Islamic extremists (e.g., Al Qaeda).  If that happens, we will all be watching anxiously to see what India and the United States do about it...