Home » all category posts » Iran

New IAEA Report On Iran


The new IAEA report on Iran is available via ISIS (PDF). Interestingly, there's no mention of either the "Green Salt" project nor of alleged blueprints for a missile warhead. If those questions have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Agency, it's not exactly something the mainstream media have been shouting from the rooftops. The only outstanding question over a possible "military dimension" mentioned, though, is the issue of possible implosion experiments at Parchin.

Update: According to Simon Tisdall in the Guardian, what the IAEA says might soon be irrelevant.

A decisive moment may arrive when Barack Obama meets Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in Washington on 5 March. "The meeting … will be definitive," said Ari Shavit in Haaretz. "If the US president wants to prevent a disaster, he must give Netanyahu iron-clad guarantees the US will stop Iran in any way necessary and at any price after the 2012 [US] elections. If Obama doesn't do this, he will obligate Netanyahu to act before the 2012 elections."

If accurate, this is not much of a choice. It suggests military action by the US or Israel or both is unavoidable, the only question being one of timing.

This despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community still doesn't believe Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.


Steve Hynd February 24, 2012 - 12:55pm
Steve Hynd's diary | printer friendly version | digg
( categories: Iran )

Blogger in UK breaks story

Sorry for off-topic post, but this blogger I've been following in the UK has been breaking stories about a planned forcing of Greece out of the Eurozone. He has sources in Europe, Washington and D.C. both in government and banking (old age can sometimes be an advantage - all those old friends who became successful still answer your calls). The story is finally pieced together and it's a blockbuster. Have a look:

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/greek-debt-exclusive-default-planners-falling-out-over-firewall-sources/

This blog (John Ward) deserves wider coverage. Pass it on.

BC Nurse Prof February 24, 2012 - 2:23pm
login to post comments
In the future I would suggest

that you add another paragraph or two of your own personal opinion about the topic, then the link and then post it as a diary.

At this website the heavy hitters go straight to the diary section and skip the front page. Then if it is deemed worthy enough, and really the bar is quite reasonable, the powers that be will promote it to the front page.

But the front page only gains you the second string readers and a smattering of first stringers who can't be bothered or who only see the front page rss feed or whatever. If you don't think it's diary material then it is likely not a worthy off topic post either.

---

That said, I did bite and surfed over to your link. I didn't read it carefully as it was long and not tightly written. But I am all ears for opinion that Greece might go Iceland/Argentina and return to the Drachma (or whatever). If it was in the post I missed it as it was likely a buried lede.

Jeff Wegerson February 24, 2012 - 3:21pm
login to post comments
OK

Thanks. Sorry.

BC Nurse Prof February 24, 2012 - 3:42pm
login to post comments
Where Have I heard that plan before? Wait, I know....

It's the renew or not the Bush tax cuts for the rich plan...

No, no wait, it's the Health Care Plan...

No no wait, it's the payroll tax cut extension plan ....

No no wait, it's the debt ceiling extension plan...

No no wait, it's the Afghanistan pullout plan...

Now all you have to do is believe that Obama will be on your side after the election. Of course, there's danger for Obama in that if you don't believe him then you might well work to get him defeated in November.

Personally I believe that Obama, the moderate Nixonian Republican he is, will pull off an Obama in Iran, ala Nixon in China, and bring on entente with Iran like we have with China. Not exactly the friendliest relationship but falls kinda in the mode of Real Politik.

I have the feeling that he hates Bibi's guts and would just love to stick it to him.

Jeff Wegerson February 24, 2012 - 3:08pm
login to post comments
Actually the March 5 meeting will be completely different

The back channel diplomacy has been going well. Russia has been functioning as the intermediary between the US and Iran, and the US has been acting as a moderating force on Israeli hawkishness.

I believe the agreement is playing out in a fashion that sanctions can begin to be lifted and Iran can be permitted to have a nuclear program for domestic purposes only IF Iran will limit its uranium enrichment to 5% of supply at any given time which is enough for nuclear plant but not a weapons program. Also, Iran must submit to inspections. Iran has countered somewhat, but the sanctions are hitting hard. I believe the only catch in their counter offer is that if they are to keep enrichment low then US must supply fuel rods for its domestic nuclear program. They claim 5% enrichment limit makes costs too high, don't know why.

Russia has been exemplary. The ability to demonstrate Iran has no weapon ambitions will be the key to stay Israeli force.

The threats by Iran on the Strait of Hormuz has been to try offset the sanction bite with a higher price on what they have been able to sell, as well as to squeeze Europe to be less willing to honor sanctions.

Looking at it all today, I believe attack will be avoided. Iran will blink, and sanctions lifted before summer. I believe there will be a path to diplomatic agreement between the US and Iran, brokered by Russia and agreed to by the EU presented to Israel in some form by the March 5 deadline. There would be no assurance of US military intervention, and there will be every effort to assuage Israeli fears.

This agreement is tantalizingly close.

Interestingly, if this agreement can be finalized, it would actually have the effect of further isolating Syria because a side part of this agreement is going to be tied to Iran no giving support to Syria. Iran is perhaps one of Syria's last remaining allies.

Scotjen61 February 24, 2012 - 3:54pm
login to post comments
Oh really! (Gripping wallet tightly)

1. Link?
2. What precisely do the Russians expect to gain? A reputation for altruism?

Synoia February 24, 2012 - 9:24pm
login to post comments
Bullshit!

Netanyahu is Bush on steroids with seemingly implicit US backing. The propaganda flying in the US indicates that it's game on for an attack.

They will bomb in October.

If Obama doesn't back Israel, he will lose the election (or so that is the gamble).

Aren't foreign entanglements great?

Rich_Lather February 24, 2012 - 10:36pm
login to post comments
Leaving aside the fact that

Leaving aside the fact that having Iran demonstrate that it has no weapon ambitions is a logical impossibility, just what counts (ahead of time) as evidence of said lack of ambition? Whatever the U.S. says is evidence?

BTW, since it's already been admitted no one has any evidence of these scary Anti-American intentions, why is anyone obliged to manufacture any response at all?

-"He deserves death."
-"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

ScentOfViolets February 24, 2012 - 11:07pm
login to post comments
It is not a logical impossibility.

The requirements of the Additional Protocol are specifically structured so that the IAEA can state with assurance that there is no undeclared nuclear activity in a signatory member state.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

JustPlainDave February 25, 2012 - 7:19am
login to post comments
Point one: merely asserting

Point one: merely asserting that it is not a logical impossibility does not make it so. And this is such an elementary point (quick: prove that God does not exist), that I've got to wonder how at this late date you remain unaware of it.

Point two: you've somehow - again - managed to actually supply any data with regard to either of my questions.

Could you please rectify this lack?

-"He deserves death."
-"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

ScentOfViolets February 25, 2012 - 5:17pm
login to post comments
No.

I lost my stomach for "discourse" involving you during the last go round.

My comment is purely a marker to indicate to those who are interested in knowing more about the history and context of the issue what they might productively explore. The Additional Protocol figures prominently in how we got here.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

JustPlainDave February 25, 2012 - 5:40pm
login to post comments
Those are some pretty sweeping statements that...

...are in various aspects significantly at odds with what the common understanding of the state of play is. I would like to see and evaluate the evidence for this please.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

JustPlainDave February 25, 2012 - 7:21am
login to post comments
The Iran war endgame

The way you'll know what was agreed will be whether or not the Obama Administration tries to tie the high gas prices in the USA with Iran's nuclear program. It sounds absurd, but there is easily a good percentage of American who would believe it outright and another chunk who would be confused enough to get dragged along. War based upon the Weapons of Mileage Destruction if you wish, the only thing Americans would fight another war for (willingly) is for their cars.

We'll just have to wait and see, I hope Obama is going to cut Israel loose in this meeting. Obama doesn't usually deliver so well on hope.

zot23 February 24, 2012 - 8:34pm
login to post comments
This statement appears to be an Untimatium

If the US president wants to prevent a disaster, he must give Netanyahu iron-clad guarantees the US will stop Iran in any way necessary and at any price after the 2012 [US] elections. If Obama doesn't do this, he will obligate Netanyahu to act before the 2012 elections.

Allies generally do not issue an ultimatum to an ally. An ultimatum is generally precursor to war.

Nor was I aware that a head of a Sovereign state (President Obama) was subservient to the head of a different, non vassal, sovereign state (Netanyahoo).

Synoia February 24, 2012 - 9:35pm
login to post comments
My understanding is that the...

...UF4 and payload studies have not been resolved. Over the years I've noted that, although the major headings of the reports remain largely unchanged, it is not uncommon for whole issues to drop from them for a while when there is nothing new to report.

From a knowledge dissemination standpoint, these reports are a stellar example of how not to do it. They're really hard for folks to dip into periodically and determine how things have changed - add to that the perceived need to speak in generalities and it becomes a real pain in the ass for folks to interpret.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

JustPlainDave February 25, 2012 - 7:26am
login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.