IAEA board adopts resolution voicing 'increasing concern' about Iran's nuclear work

2011-11-20 00:51:27 GMT+7 (ICT)

VIENNA, AUSTRIA (BNO NEWS) -- The UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Friday announced that its Board of Governors has adopted a new resolution to voice its concern about Iran's nuclear work and to urge the country to cooperate with the international community.

"The resolution expresses deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions," the IAEA said after adopting the resolution by a majority vote.

On Thursday, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said that throughout the past three years, the agency has obtained additional information regarding Iran's nuclear program, increasing their concerns about possible military dimensions. He said the agency finds the information to be "overall, credible" and consistent in terms of technical content, individuals, time frames and organizations involved.

"The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device," Amano said during a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors. "It also indicates that, prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured program, and that some activities may still be ongoing."

Friday's resolution urges Iran once again to comply fully and without delay with its obligations under relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors.

Furthermore, in support of a diplomatic solution, the resolution calls on Iran to engage seriously and without preconditions in talks aimed at restoring international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.

At the scheduled March 2012 Board of Governors meeting, the Director General is expected to include an assessment of the implementation of this resolution in his progress report.

The international community welcomed the resolution. "The P5+1 countries have affirmed Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear program but make clear that with that right comes responsibilities - responsibilities Iran has yet to fulfill," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. "The P5+1 remains ready to engage with Iran if Iran is genuinely prepared to engage in serious negotiations, where Iran can choose to rebuild international confidence in the nature of its nuclear program."

In the coming weeks, the U.S. government will work with its international partners in order to increase the pressure on Iran's government until it decides to meet its international obligations, Clinton added.

In the United Kingdom, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the IAEA resolution sends an 'unambiguous message' to Iran that it must address the 'grave concerns' about its nuclear program. "The IAEA's report provides credible and detailed evidence about possible military dimensions of the Iranian program," he said. "The IAEA Board's resolution - supported by the UK, U.S., France, Germany, Russia and China - should leave Iran in no doubt about the unity and determination of the international community."

Hague added: "As today's resolution makes clear, the IAEA cannot provide credible assurances about Iran's nuclear program. Until Iran acknowledges this, co-operates fully with the Agency and complies with all its international obligations, we and our partners will work together to tighten the pressure on Iran. Iran is already isolated in the world but it does not need to be. Its response to this report must be to chose a different path."

Last year, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, citing the proliferation risks of its nuclear program and its continued failure to cooperate with the IAEA.

This month, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano wrote to the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran proposing to send a high-level team to the country to clarify the issues outlined in the IAEA's latest report. "I hope a suitable date can be agreed soon," he said about the letter. "It is essential that any such mission should be well planned and that it should address the issues contained in my report."

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-11-20

The situation appears to be heating up rather quickly. If Iran succeeds, who's next?

He said a nuclear Iran would have deep repercussions for the Middle East, prompting countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt to "turn nuclear" and starting a countdown to putting nuclear materials in the hands of terrorists.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-iran-less-than-a-year-away-from-producing-nuclear-weapon-1.396511

This reminds me of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was supposed to have. They still haven't found any. Scaremongering at it's worst, so that the US and it's allies can give themselves a moral justification to attack Iran.

This reminds me of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was supposed to have. They still haven't found any. Scaremongering at it's worst, so that the US and it's allies can give themselves a moral justification to attack Iran.

I wonder if anyone has ever submitted the question to Iran - if Israel gets rid of

all their nuclear weapons, would you abandon your nuclear ambitions?

It's worth a shot to avoid world War 3 ? doesn't cost anything to ask the question?

But I know it's very unlikely that question would even be asked? I wonder why?

This reminds me of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was supposed to have. They still haven't found any. Scaremongering at it's worst, so that the US and it's allies can give themselves a moral justification to attack Iran.

+1

This reminds me of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was supposed to have. They still haven't found any. Scaremongering at it's worst, so that the US and it's allies can give themselves a moral justification to attack Iran.

+1

+2

Here we go again

This reminds me of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was supposed to have. They still haven't found any. Scaremongering at it's worst, so that the US and it's allies can give themselves a moral justification to attack Iran.

This kind of "reasoning" I find atrociously suspect. They are two bordering countries in the same region. They both have oil. They both start with the letter I. I am sure there are lots of other similarities, but please face reality, they are DIFFERENT countries, with different leaders, at different points in time, with different situations. Yes the Iraq thing was a fabrication, but in no way whatsoever does it follow that the concerns about Iran are ALSO a fabrication. You might as well say someone made up lies about Bolivia 50 years ago and its germane to today's Iran. SEPARATE issues.

People of good will don't want to see an attack on Iran's nuclear program as that will likely launch a war, but many of those same people of good will don't want to see a nuclear Iran. So, it's decision time.

Will Israel attack? Will the USA support Israel in an attack decision, or not? Undetermined.

A second consideration is whether an Iran with a bomb could be deterred from using it. Many in Washington, with its half-century experience of the Cold War, suspect that it could be — and U.S. policy since the Bush administration has quietly aimed at setting up a deterrence structure, through such measures as providing air defense missiles to U.S. Persian Gulf allies.

But most Israelis, with the Holocaust in mind, judge it differently: The religious motivations of Iranian rulers, they argue, mean Tehran might be willing to accept even devastating civilian casualties in exchange for wiping out the Jewish state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/for-israel-a-tough-call-on-attacking-iran/2011/11/10/gIQAmHCBJN_story.html

Edited November 20, 201114 yr by Jingthing

Who died & made Israel or the US the Nuclear marshal's of the world?

What is most disgusting is Israel who to this day has never allowed one nuclear inspection.

Nor will they even take part as every other country (except North Korea) in divulging how many Nukes they possess.

Yet they have the gall to threaten others with unprovoked attacks? This pre-emptive crap is just a term for unprovoked attacks.

Yes we know the whine that they are terrorist & we are not but puleeze....

Judging trees by their fruits would suggest others may see Israel & the US as the terrorist.

If Israel goes ahead with any unprovoked attacks on Iran they deserve anything that comes back at them.

Same for the US.

If Israel attacks, it is a decision that won't be taken lightly. It will because the leadership there thinks its a matter of existential survival. Who are non-Israelis to say it is not if that's their call? If it really is that serious for Israel, any concerns about global public relations need to be secondary.

Edited November 20, 201114 yr by Jingthing

What is most disgusting is Israel who to this day has never allowed one nuclear inspection.

Nor will they even take part as every other country (except North Korea) in divulging how many Nukes they possess.

Excellent points which will never be addressed meaningfully by the support Israel "right or wrong" crowd.

The topic is IRAN's nuclear program. I realize Israel also starts with an I.

Yes Israel & Iran start with an I but the only reason this unprovoked attack will occur is because of Israel

What gives them the right?

"its a matter of existential survival" You say?

Well why can't others claim the same?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander

Why cannot the neighbors of Israel then attack Israel for having nukes if your

line of thinking is supported?

No it is more like this...........

Nuclear Pots Call Iranian Kettle Black

Or this....

America's itch to brawl has a new target – but bombs can't conquer Iran

It's in the debate stage still but the timing is now more critical. I didn't say Iran's program is an existential threat to Israel. I don't know or really know how any humans can know for certain. That's part of what the debate is about.

The topic is IRAN's nuclear program. I realize Israel also starts with an I.

Oh, if it were only so simple Jingthing. The situation cannot begin to be considered until you take a holistic view. Israel has nukes (and a very well made point by Flying a few posts above), so does Pakistan, India, the US, Russia, China and yet for a country in the middle of all that we deny them their own right to ensure any attack on them will result in Mutually Assured Destruction. I guess Obama needs a war to start before the next elections to ensure he has a job for 4 more years, and Israel has once again got its hand firmly up the ass of its puppet.

Besides, Israel has so many Patriot missile batteries positioned around the country and its borders that Iran would have to produce a hundred missiles and launch them all at the same time in order to hope that one got through. Rocket launched nukes have an almost zero chance of making it anywhere close to target in Israel.

Edited November 20, 201114 yr by GentlemanJim

It's in the debate stage still but the timing is now more critical. I didn't say Iran's program is an existential threat to Israel. I don't know or really know how any humans can know for certain. That's part of what the debate is about.

Yes time is of the essence, a new round of elections start soon. I think this has gone well past the debate stage Jingthing.

It's in the debate stage still but the timing is now more critical. I didn't say Iran's program is an existential threat to Israel. I don't know or really know how any humans can know for certain. That's part of what the debate is about.

Yes time is of the essence, a new round of elections start soon. I think this has gone well past the debate stage Jingthing.

You think the decision to attack has been made already? You may be right. I don't know. Also, I don't know whether the US will approve it, or not. I guess you have access to secret meetings denied the great unwashed.

Read those two articles I linked.

Both are level headed & fact filled.

Who died & made Israel or the US the Nuclear marshal's of the world?

What is most disgusting is Israel who to this day has never allowed one nuclear inspection.

Nor will they even take part as every other country (except North Korea) in divulging how many Nukes they possess.

Yet they have the gall to threaten others with unprovoked attacks? This pre-emptive crap is just a term for unprovoked attacks.

Yes we know the whine that they are terrorist & we are not but puleeze....

Judging trees by their fruits would suggest others may see Israel & the US as the terrorist.

If Israel goes ahead with any unprovoked attacks on Iran they deserve anything that comes back at them.

Same for the US.

+1000

I think we've had enough of the comments on Israel. This article is about the IAEA resolution on Iran. I am afraid we will end up in a never ending argument on the issue.

Please stick to topic.

Anyway, I applaud the resolution, but remain very skeptical it will have any real impact in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear WEAPONS program.

Come on JT, let's get all the nukes out of pakistan, india, iran, and israel.

Surely if someone nuked a nuke-free israel, big brother would take care of them.

As for iran, I see a fukishima scenario before a nuke attack on them tbh. Either way is really bad news for those of us downwind.

Off-topic, inflammatory and argumentative post removed.

Come on JT, let's get all the nukes out of pakistan, india, iran, and israel.

Surely if someone nuked a nuke-free israel, big brother would take care of them.

As for iran, I see a fukishima scenario before a nuke attack on them tbh. Either way is really bad news for those of us downwind.

Come on, BKK-J, that's the point now, isn't it? Once a country goes nuclear, that's it. They won't go back. They may scale back as the US and Russia are by treaties, but they won't become un-pregnant. The issue now if something very severe isn't done, Iran will join the club. Some thoughtful people think their leaders may turn out to be suicidally insane. Nobody knows the future but they are a bigger risk than, let us say, Costa Rica. Those other countries -- TOO LATE! This is basic stuff and I am surprised you are even framing the argument in the way you did.

It's not so much who has nukes, but who in that country has the authority to use them. What is the protocol in place? In the US, for example, it requires more than one person--I believe the President and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Pakistan was of great concern for a time during the political strife that led to Musharaf seizing control.

In the case of Iran, with the Mullahs in control, the dimension of religious fundamentalism becomes of greater concern.

It's not so much who has nukes, but who in that country has the authority to use them. What is the protocol in place? In the US, for example, it requires more than one person--I believe the President and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Pakistan was of great concern for a time during the political strife that led to Musharaf seizing control.

In the case of Iran, with the Mullahs in control, the dimension of religious fundamentalism becomes of greater concern.

I hope you are you not suggesting the the nuclear arms and Parkistan are safer today than they were when

Musharaf was in control?

Dr. Hans Blix doesn't seem to think there is any problem?

Dr. Hans Blix to EIR: IAEA Report Is No Justification for War

" And I'm saying, absolutely not. I think, first of all, it would be illegal, for one thing. Iran is not threatening anybody. They don't have a record of aggression or a record of expansionism."

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20378

Edited November 20, 201114 yr by metisdead
30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

It's not so much who has nukes, but who in that country has the authority to use them. What is the protocol in place? In the US, for example, it requires more than one person--I believe the President and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Pakistan was of great concern for a time during the political strife that led to Musharaf seizing control.

In the case of Iran, with the Mullahs in control, the dimension of religious fundamentalism becomes of greater concern.

Yes, exactly.

I am not suggesting that Pakistan's nukes are safer now than before. It was merely an example and one of the more widely acknowledged instances of certain effective safeguards not being in place.

I would prefer that we not have any more nuclear nations, but given time, we will likely have a lot more. I certainly do not support a war with Iran. They are not a country that I trust either.

My fear with a theocracy is how long will it take before someone believes that this new nuclear gift from Allah is for the purpose of ridding the world of infidels? That is the dimension which concerns me. It's hard to negotiate with religion.

Some Muslim sects believe that they are meant to start the apocalypse to bring back the 12th Imam and destroy the world. Iranian President Ahmadinezhad prays asking the Mahdi to return while actively seeking to produce nuclear weapons.

Edited November 20, 201114 yr by Scott

Some Muslim sects believe that they are meant to start the apocalypse to bring back the 12th Imam and destroy the world. Iranian President Ahmadinezhad prays asking the Mahdi to return while actively seeking to produce nuclear weapons.

Which is exactly why MAD does not work with Iran, they should be taken out a.s.a.p though heaven knows why it took so long to realize this.

There was an interesting interview on Fareed Zakaria GPS of a man who has a good track record predicting when autocratic leaders will rise and fall. His long term prediction which he feels is coming true is that both the unpronounceable A-jad holocaust denier and the fearful bearded religious nutcase are in decline and a relatively more pragmatic leader will rise. He will be not inclined to insanity and would settle for Iran being super close to weaponizing, but not weaponizing. Not because they wouldn't want to, but because it wouldn't be worth the blowback. This way Iran to have many of the power perks of being a nuclear power without some of the problems. If this is true and comes to be, the world could live with that. But countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia are understandably not happy to make that bet, even if it is a good bet, that more moderate forces will prevail.