News

Sargord,

I agree that Iran's supposed obligations to comply with the newer Subsidiary Arrangements are a point of contention. 

However, this contention appears to be just from Iran's perspective on the matter.

And, the IAEA's position on the matter, which is evidently contrary to Iran's position, hasn't changed since Iran unilaterally decided to not be obliged in implementing said Subsidiary Arrangements.

But, nevertheless, I am interested in reading about the "legal defense" concerning this matter if you manage to locate whatever article that legal defense is demonstrated within.

And thanks, in advance.  :)

LoverofLiberty

Acknowledged.

It's a point of contention. But there is a credible legal defense for Iran's position, as provided by a well established legal expert.

Unfortunately, after a rather long search, I can not locate it. :(

Sargord,

Sargord: "And it has stated that according to its IAEA Safeguards Agreement, it doesn't have to publicly disclose such until 180 days before introducing nuclear materials into the new facility.

So, even if true- and that's a big if- what's the big deal?"

Actually, the IAEA does not recognize Iran's claim that "it doesn't have to publicly disclose such until 180 days before introducing nuclear materials into the new facility."

And, this is because Iran agreed, in February 2003, to the newer Subsidiary Arrangements which requires that states report to the IAEA about any and all new nuclear facilities as soon as the decision to construct them is taken and since there is no provision by which a state could unilaterally withdraw from implementing those Subsidiary Arrangements once they are agreed upon by said state.

And, quite contrary to some people's assumptions, Subsidiary Arrangements do not require ratification by national legislatures. 

So, if this alleged and newly revealed site is investigated by the IAEA and found to be part of Iran's nuclear program, then Iran clearly violated her international obligations.

(For a clear and detailed analysis of Iran's obligations regarding revealing nuclear-related sites, please refer to the following article since it dealt with the nuclear site in Qom that was revealed last September: //www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23884&prog=zgp&proj=znpp#3)

So, if Iran knowingly violated her international obligations, then why shouldn't the US and, perhaps, another "coalition of the willing" be free to violate her or their international obligations by militarily striking such sites?

Bavafa,

The so-called "legitimacy and lawfulness" of this newly revealed and alleged nuclear site is yet to be determined by the IAEA.

And, I seriously doubt that the likelihood of any potential future military strike at this site is at all diminished, if it is found to be true that this newly-revealed site is "illegitimate and unlawful" with regards to the IAEA.

And, if the IAEA takes issue with this newly revealed and alleged nuclear site in the future, then I think it only adds fuel to the fire, so to speak.

So, do you honestly think it is in the Iranian public's interest if the Iranian regime hides any of its (supposedly) energy-only-related and (supposedly) transparent nuclear activities, particularly if doing so only appears to aggravate the situation?

MEK = MOSSAD

AS it was revealed in the book "Target Iran" by scott ritter, a few years ago when MEK announced that Iran had  a scret plan for A bomb, actually it was the mossad, AIPAC, set up using the press and having a MEK to claim it, when in fact it was russian jew who had supposedly given them the info. So this is the repeat for those who never knew about the forst story! ISRAEL THE MOTHER OF ALL WARS IN ME.

other countries

Other countries always try to keep sensitive information (list of scientists involved, where, when) from others. As Bafava mentioned, it can be used when enemy is eager to destroy it. Iran must also keep other scientific areas under control (i.e. nanobiology, nanotechnology, aerospace, and others).

LoveOfLiberty,

Could it be that there are 5+1 nation (most of the armed with nuclear weapon) eager to destroy those sites even if they are legitimate and lawful sites?

Mehrdad

bfarahmand,

bfarahmand:  "They keep provide sensitive information to other countries."

Why should (supposedly) energy-only-related and (supposedly) fully-disclosed-to-the-IAEA nuclear activities be construed as being "sensitive?" 

Well, Iran has publicly

Well, Iran has publicly stated it intends to build something like 10 nuclear sites. And it has stated that according to its IAEA Safeguards Agreement, it doesn't have to publicly disclose such until 180 days before introducing nuclear materials into the new facility.

So, even if true- and that's a big if- what's the big deal?

MEK, from Gutter to sewage!

    Only MEK can go from Saddam's pay roll to Netanyahu's!

This is why they are hated

This is the reason why MEK are hated by the Iranian people. They keep provide sensitive information to other countries.

It is good to know MEK has satellite imagery system now!!!

Did they build and manage it themselves?

And I wonder why are they referred to as "Dissident Group" and not by their real name "traitor group"

Mehrdad

Islamist Marxist MEK using Israeli intelligence as their own!

Now where have I heard that before.

//iranian.com/main/news/2010/06/30/mujahe...

//www.alternet.org/world/71664/