Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Muhammad ElBaradei, Mammad for short, is to finish his twelve year directorship of the agency this coming Monday on a doozy of a failure.
Mammad is known for treating IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic’s illegal nuke program with kid gloves to the degree that gave birth to the persistent, false, rumors of him being married to an Iranian woman and of being a closeted IRR supporter.
Of course his dismissively downplaying all the damning evidences of Islamist Rapists’ illegal activities did not help much to dispel the rumors. It got to the point that some IAEA Board members took the highly unusual step of publically questioning his handling of the case prompting him to issue official denials of going soft on IRR.
So it was a total surprise to read in the news that in a speech to the IAEA Board of Governors, Mammad unequivocally blamed the Islamist Rapists for reaching “dead end” with IAEA--the very first such clear cut position taken by him against IRR.
"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues,” and, "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us." also, "there was no progress on the remaining issues of concern which needs to be clarified for the agency to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."
Meanwhile in an interview IRR’s nuke ambassador threatened IAEA with cooperation "would be reduced to the minimum we are legally obliged."
The layman’s term for such situation is back to square one. Which means Mammad’s downplaying of IRR’s prevarications, delaying tactics and alike has produced zilch. The bottom line of it is due to Mammad’s mishandling of the case IAEA is not able to issue a clean bill of health for the Islamist Rapists’ vast, mostly clandestine, illegal dual purpose nuke program.
And while Mammad was busy being a failure in IRR nuke case, them centrifuges were spinning like there is no tomorrow producing more of the stuff which is the main ingredient for the potential Islamist rapists’ very own mushroom cloud maker.
Before it is too late and the nuke acquiring messianic Islamist Rapists impose a cataclysmic war on Iran and the vital Middle East region, the sane world has to step in. Imposition of airtight sanctions in tandem with openly backing Iranian people with moral and material support to overthrow the Islamist usurpers is a must. Time is of essence.
ps. The UN nuclear watchdog's governing body has passed a resolution condemning Iran for developing a uranium enrichment site in secret. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also demanded that Iran freeze the project immediately. The resolution, the first against Iran in nearly four years, was passed by a 25-3 margin with six abstentions.
|Recently by Fred||Comments||Date|
ادا اطوار اسلامی
|Dec 05, 2012|
|Dec 05, 2012|
|Iranians are legitimate target|
|Dec 04, 2012|
|نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز||Dec 04|
|Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day||Lawyer says death sentence suspended||Dec 03|
|Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day||Iterview with mother||Dec 02|
|احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱||Dec 02|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day||46 days on hunger strike||Dec 01|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti||In Barcelona||Nov 30|
|گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی||Nov 30|
|Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day||Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years||Nov 30|
|محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین||Nov 29|
|Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day||Kurdish Activist on Death Row||Nov 28|
China & Russiaby ahmad_ on Sat Nov 28, 2009 05:46 AM PST
and the other world powers were never friends of Iran but looking at their own interest. The other countries like Venezuela and Peru , Sri Lanka saw a milking cow and benefited from it.
The only friend this regime could have had was the Iranian people who were treated like dirt by these thugs for the past 30 years.
Making Doc happyby Fred on Sat Nov 28, 2009 01:28 AM PST
Ok Doc, based solely on your say so that IAEA, its Board of Governors along with the UN Security Council and whole lot of other uninformed are wrong, I buy your expert legal finding. Happy?
Obama and Hillary are hardby vildemose on Fri Nov 27, 2009 05:39 PM PST
Obama and Hillary are hard a work making things happen in a positive way. Bush could never have accomplished this and was only successful in marginalizing the influence of the U.S. on the world stage. Neither China nor Russia would have come on board with anything. China is also aligning itself in reducing emissions along with the U.S. This is both positive and progressive.
I wonder how much this vote cost?by Q on Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:09 PM PST
Americans should wonder and ask questions about how much money is being spent on diplomatic and intelligence effort and arm twisting at a time of financial crisis.
This is the scheme that the West put in place and now has successfully has sold Iran's reasonable request (to exchange fuel in small quantities) as "rejection" of the deal, to the delight of neocons, Ahamdinejad and Fred's Israeli/AIPAC colleagues everywhere.
the first IAEA censure ofby vildemose on Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:40 AM PST
the first IAEA censure of Iran in 4 years is more than a "little thing". I would say it's noteworthy.
Now what?by Bijan A M on Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:31 AM PST
Every sane soul already knew that IRR was stonewalling. OK, now it is in the open and nobody will argue against the dual nature of IRR’s nuclear program. The question will now become (as Fred has been screaming all along), what is the sane world going to do about it?
Now that IRR has lost the support of Russia & China in their argument for diplomatic approach, what would be the next step? Do you think absese of S-300 air-defense system would bring IRR to the table to stop their aspiration for a nuke bomb? If not, would the next step be additional sanctions?
Only time will tell. In the mean time, there will be no stop in moral and material support for the braves to get rid of the beast.
IAEA and BoG do not have the legal rightby Mammad on Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:18 AM PST
While it is definitely the IRI's fault that the IAEA has reached a dead-end with it - in my view the proposal for exchanging LEU with fuel for the research reactor is a good one - a few points are worth mentioning:
1. Iran's nuclear program is perfectly legal, unlike the expert-in-residence, Freddo, says. Neither the IAEA nor the UN Security Council have ever made such a declaration. To the contrary, in fact. It is only in Freddo's fantasies that the program is illegal.
2. The IAEA and its BoG do not have the legal rights to order any member state to freeze or suspend its nuclear program. There is not a single word in the IAEA Statute that can even be interpreted that way. So, as much as I would like to see the hardliners' regime get a strong kick in their teeth, the BoG has acted illegally.
3. Freddo is rehashing word by word the baseless accusations of Israel Lobby, the War Party, and G.W. Bush administration about ElBaradei, nothing less or more. Exactly the same accusations were made against him when he was up for re-election a few years ago. The US could not find EVEN ONE SINGLE MEMBER STATE - not even among its own allies - to back it up. That only goes to show the credibility of the accusations, or of the US for that matter.
ElBaradei's "offense" is that it had the IAEA do its work the way it is supposed to be done, and did not give in to pressure by the US and Israel. This is the same ElBaradei that said Iraq did not have a nuclear weapon program and turned out to be spectacularly correct.
I'll not return to this blog to read any "response" by Freddo!!
The other Mammad!
the vote passed 25 to 3.....by vildemose on Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:47 AM PST
the three countries voting against the resolution were Cuba, Malaysia and Venezuela......6 of the governing body’s 35 nations — Afghanistan, Brazil, Egypt, Pakistan, South Africa and Turkey — abstained, and one, Azerbaijan, was absent.
In an overwhelming display of disapproval, the governing body also expressed "serious concern" about potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program.
The resolution censuring Iran was approved overwhelmingly by 25 votes to 3. It came after Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared in unusually blunt language on Thursday that Iran had stonewalled investigators about evidence that the country had worked on nuclear weapons design, and that his efforts to reveal the truth had "effectively reached a dead end."
Dr. ElBaradei is preparing to leave office next week after 12 years at the head of the agency. His remarks refocused attention on Iran’s suspected work on weapons design at a moment when the West is debating how to respond after Tehran backed away from a commitment it made in early October to temporarily send much of its nuclear fuel abroad.
The IAEA has censured Iranby vildemose on Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:38 AM PST
The IAEA has censured Iran for the first time in four years over it's stalling, secretiveness and lack of tranparency regarding its nuclear program. They have in fact, caught Iran in an outright lie. Iran has claimed that construction on the Qom enrichment site began in 2007 but the IAEA has satellite evidence showing that it began much earlier, in 2002.
Iran faced rare international unity today when the governing board of the UN nuclear watchdog issued a formal demand that it immediately halt work on a secret uranium enrichment plant at the centre of concerns that the country is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Russia and China lined up with the US, Britain, France and Germany to censure Iran in a vote by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), passing the first resolution against Iran in nearly four years by a 25-3 margin.
The IAEA vote could form the basis for a future binding resolution by the UN security council, which in turn could be used to impose sanctions.
The censure also reflects dismay at Iran's apparent rejection of the deal which would send about 75% of its enriched uranium stockpile out of country.
The IAEA measure also signals diminishing tolerance over Iran's reluctance to embrace an IAEA-brokered compromise deal on its enriched uranium.
That plan calls for Iran to ship its low-enriched uranium to Russia where it would be further enriched for use in a nuclear power station. It would then be shipped to France where it would be packaged in nuclear fuel rods and then sent back to Iran.
IAEA Director-General Muhammad el-Baradei told reporters in Vienna before the vote that Iran has continued to make counteroffers rather than accepting the compromise deal.
"[Iran's] position -- conveyed to me orally a number of times -- is that they want a simultaneous swap between the fuel and their low-enriched uranium," el-Baradei said.
"They are ready to put this material under IAEA control in an island in the Persian Gulf -- [the Iranian island of] Kish -- under our control and custody. But that will not take the material out [of Iran.] The whole idea, as I explained to them, to diffuse the crisis is to take the material out [of Iran
That proposal has been rejected for obvious reasons:
A senior Obama administration official said that proposal had been rejected because leaving the nuclear material on Iranian territory would allow for the possibility that the Iranians could evict the international inspectors at any moment. That happened in North Korea in 2003, and within months the country had converted its fuel into the material for several nuclear weapons.
ELBaredei, who steps down as IAEA head at the end of the month finally shows his exasperation at Iranian stonewalling.
The director general of the United Nations nuclear watchdog declared in unusually blunt language on Thursday that Iran had stonewalled investigators about evidence that the country had worked on nuclear weapons design, and that his efforts to reveal the truth had "effectively reached a dead end."
Addressing IAEA governors in Vienna, Mr El Baradei said his inspectors had made no progress on areas which needed to be clarified in order to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.
"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said.
"We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
Dr. ElBaradei’s statement was a sharp departure in tone, and a tacit acknowledgment that his behind-the-scenes effort to broker a deal had collapsed.
Are sanctions looming?
The latest criticism of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is another sign that new sanctions could be on the way.
The IAEA resolution, censuring Iran's secret construction of another uranium enrichment plant, was supported by Russia and China.
This does not mean they will join in a new round of international measures against Iran. But it does mean that Iran cannot count on them for diplomatic support.
And it possibly indicates that Russia will not supply Iran with the S-300 anti-missile system that Iran has ordered. That would be a sanction in itself.
US President Barack Obama has indicated that he will assess the Iranian position by the end of the year.
If he goes for more sanctions, he will try to get Russia and China on board. If he cannot, he will act with fellow negotiators Britain, France and Germany, plus, he hopes, the whole EU and other players.
AIPAC sycophantby kharmagas on Fri Nov 27, 2009 08:44 AM PST
The two major U.S/AIPAC mercenary wars have not remotely had the desired results. On the contrary very likely they have had and will continue to have the opposite results. .....in all likelihood your "airtight" sanction/war against Iran will have the the opposite result too .... when do you war monger zealots want to learn?
Quit being Ledeen's mouthpieceby MeyBokhor_Manbarbesuzan on Fri Nov 27, 2009 04:17 AM PST
The following quoted from Wikipedia
( //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix )
shows the naivity (or maliciousness) of those believing and swallowing whatever G5 leasers throw at them.
"Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration,  and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found. 
In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media" .
In 2004, Blix published a book, Disarming Iraq, where he gives his account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion.
Blix said he suspected his home and office were bugged by the United States, while he led teams searching for Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction.Although these suspicions were never directly substantiated, evidence of bugging of UN security council representatives around the time the US was seeking approval from the council came to light after a British government translator leaked a document "allegedly from an American National Security Agency" requesting that British intelligence put wiretaps on delegates to the UN security council."