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

[midas]

'Iran strike to paralyze life in Israel'

" Former director of the Mossad spy agency Meir Dagan has warned that an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would lead to a regional war.

He described the possibility of a future Israeli airstrike on Iran as “the stupidest thing he has ever heard.”

http://presstv.com/detail/213003.html

[Jingthing]

Israel being a lively democracy includes many intelligent, credible voices on this crucial issue. Recently US defense secretary Leon Panetta warned Israel not to do attack Iran, and only do it as a last resort. But he left the door open that a last resort will be needed. If Israel chooses this path, it may be the most important decision in the history of Israel, and it may determine whether Israel continues to exist or not. Personally, I don't know which way they should choose. Of course I want Israel to continue to exist but so many including some visible posters on this board, do not.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/03/usa-israel-isolation-idINDEE7B201B20111203

Panetta said a strike could disrupt the already fragile economies of Europe and the United States, trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces, and ultimately spark a popular backlash in Iran that would bolster its rulers.

It also may not be effective. Panetta cited estimates from Israelis that a strike might set back Iran's nuclear program by one to two years "at best."

He finally warned about engulfing the region in war.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Israel being a lively democracy includes many intelligent, credible voices on this crucial issue. Recently US defense secretary Leon Panetta warned Israel not to do attack Iran, and only do it as a last resort. But he left the door open that a last resort will be needed. If Israel chooses this path, it may be the most important decision in the history of Israel, and it may determine whether Israel continues to exist or not. Personally, I don't know which way they should choose. Of course I want Israel to continue to exist but so many including some visible posters on this board, do not.

http://in.reuters.co...E7B201B20111203

Panetta said a strike could disrupt the already fragile economies of Europe and the United States, trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces, and ultimately spark a popular backlash in Iran that would bolster its rulers.

It also may not be effective. Panetta cited estimates from Israelis that a strike might set back Iran's nuclear program by one to two years "at best."

He finally warned about engulfing the region in war.

So how about Israel live in peace....simple! Allow Iran to go ahead with it's civilian Nuclear Energy facilities and warn it that in the event of the launch of any nuclear weapons by Iran on Israel then Iran will be wiped off the map in its entirety. It worked with Russia and Europe/USA. The religious argument of Iran's lunatic nature doesn't work and in all honesty I am far more worried about fundamentalist christians in the US Bible belt who need the establishment of Zion in order to pave the way for the rapture. Scary times ahead. I think Thailand will be safe though so I will stick it out here.

[Jingthing]

Yeah, peace in the Israel region is so simple, huh? That's the daftest thing I've read this year.

[GentlemanJim]

Yeah, peace in the Israel region is so simple, huh? That's the daftest thing I've read this year.

Only because of the Israeli's. I am sure you have heard much dafter things this year Jingthing. If you don't want war then you have to try and adopt a policy of peace. And when you are the major aggressor in the region is that so hard to comprehend. Israel is so overwhelmingly well defended and with an attack capability akin to a super power if it adopted peace then any aggression by its neighbours would result in sympathy and support by the rest of the world for Israel. War mongering won't work and two wrongs won't make a right. Someone has to start. It normally works when the bully stops.

[Jingthing]

Don't be so naive. It's a known fact that Israel is surrounded by hostile countries who consider them occupiers of the ENTIRE land of Israel where the majority of their populations want to defeat them, either evicting all the Jews or killing them. If you can't admit that, there is no grounds for rational discussion. Nobody is saying Israel hasn't made big mistakes, but to suggest that the lack of peace in the region is all Israel's fault is intellectually dishonest.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Don't be so naive. It's a known fact that Israel is surrounded by hostile countries who consider them occupiers of the ENTIRE land of Israel where the majority of their populations want to defeat them, either evicting all the Jews or killing them. If you can't admit that, there is no grounds for rational discussion. Nobody is saying Israel hasn't made big mistakes, but to suggest that the lack of peace in the region is all Israel's fault is intellectually dishonest.

Pull back to the pre 67 borders, stop the illegal settlement building and give the palestinians some hope by removing the sanctions that are keeping them in the stone age and you have an excellent receipe for mutual toleration. It's chicken and egg and the bully with all the big sticks must go first. If it doesn't work they can bring the big sticks back out and the world would be more supportive. They are so far down the path to war what is there to lose? Its all about the rapture I tell you!

[Jingthing]

I agree with Panetta Israel needs to go to the negotiating table but to suggest Israel should give everything and ask nothing is an insult. You wouldn't expect your own country to negotiate that way and you know it.

Rapture, schmapture, Jews don't know from rapture.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[Pedzie]

I can understand why Iran would want a nuke, living next to an unchecked Israeli nuclear arsenal, 1 rule for Iran another for Israel ??

Despite the Iranian leader once saying he would wipe Israel from the face of the planet, I highly doubt Iran would attack Israel.

[Jingthing]

Despite the Iranian leader once saying he would wipe Israel from the face of the planet, I highly doubt Iran would attack Israel.

Easy for you to say not living in Tel Aviv as I'm sure you don't. Israelis have to live in their real world and the decisions they make are theirs to make, not yours.

[Pedzie]

Despite the Iranian leader once saying he would wipe Israel from the face of the planet, I highly doubt Iran would attack Israel.

Easy for you to say not living in Tel Aviv as I'm sure you don't. Israelis have to live in their real world and the decisions they make are theirs to make, not yours.

Yes I can agree with that and indeed Israel has every dam right to defend themselves, at least do it legally and abide by UN law!

[Pedzie]

From an Iranian perspective, why should they listen to the IAEA when another country can ignore the IAEA and get away with it.

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/dstar7.html

[GentlemanJim]

Despite the Iranian leader once saying he would wipe Israel from the face of the planet, I highly doubt Iran would attack Israel.

Easy for you to say not living in Tel Aviv as I'm sure you don't. Israelis have to live in their real world and the decisions they make are theirs to make, not yours.

Urban Myth...and a dangerous one.

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan told the New York Times. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

Bacmann says Iran has threatened to use Nuclear Weapons against Israel and the US

Likewise at no point did Amadinejad ever deny the holocaust.

What he said was

"If you have burned the Jews why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?

We are being taken to a war in which many will die because of lies and the imposing of false terror on the population.

The fact is that the IAEA has never found any evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and they have stated that.

Edited December 5, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Pedzie]

Despite the Iranian leader once saying he would wipe Israel from the face of the planet, I highly doubt Iran would attack Israel.

Easy for you to say not living in Tel Aviv as I'm sure you don't. Israelis have to live in their real world and the decisions they make are theirs to make, not yours.

JT, You can't honestly believe Iran would make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Israel! The consequences would be a nuke going off in Israel and the complete annihilation of Iran, the Iranian leaders certainly know this, it doesn't make sense.

[Jingthing]

I don't see the Iranian dictators as rational players. Neither does much of the world. Sense has little to do with it.

Right now, I would like to see Israel listen to Leon Panetta and his strong suggestions that they change their ways and I would also like all of the world to clamp down hard on Iran and try to stop them from developing a nuke weapons program short of war. However, I don't think the latter will work as Russia and China won't cooperate.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[Pedzie]

I don't see the Iranian dictators as rational players. Neither does much of the world. Sense has little to do with it.

Rational players or not the leaders of Iran would not start a nuclear war with the guarantee of the complete destruction of Iran and it's 3000 year history! All for the sake for a strike on Israel ??

[Jingthing]

I don't see the Iranian dictators as rational players. Neither does much of the world. Sense has little to do with it.

Rational players or not the leaders of Iran would not start a nuclear war with the guarantee of the complete destruction of Iran and it's 3000 year history! All for the sake for a strike on Israel ??

You're not thinking straight, dude. Iran gets them. Then Saudi gets them. Then Turkey. Then Egypt. Then Syria. The US doesn't even have relations with Iran. Consider the communication issues. Under JFK the USA and Russia almost nuked each other over communication problems because they both thought the other was shooting first. Nuke proliferation in the region makes nuke war inevitable in the region. Don't even bother saying Israel has them. Duh. That isn't the point. Once a country has them, they never give them up. Israel alone having them is the OPPOSITE of proliferation in that region. Yes, I know it pisses off Iran, but Saudi is very happy with the situation.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[Pedzie]

I don't see the Iranian dictators as rational players. Neither does much of the world. Sense has little to do with it.

Rational players or not the leaders of Iran would not start a nuclear war with the guarantee of the complete destruction of Iran and it's 3000 year history! All for the sake for a strike on Israel ??

You're not thinking straight, dude. Iran gets them. Then Saudi gets them. Then Turkey. Then Egypt. Then Syria. The US doesn't even have relations with Iran. Consider the communication issues. Under JFK the USA and Russia almost nuked each other over communication problems because they both thought the other was shooting first. Nuke proliferation in the region makes nuke war inevitable in the region. Don't even bother saying Israel has them. Duh. That isn't the point. Once a country has them, they never give them up. Israel alone having them is the OPPOSITE of proliferation in that region. Yes, I know it pisses off Iran, but Saudi is very happy with the situation.

JT, I agree with you on this one, in my opinion Iran should not have nukes, but if Israel can have them whist defying the IAEA numerous times then why can't Iran have them? The whole problem in the region lies with Israel ok, they should not have nukes, they are backed 100% by the US!

Look at the manner in which Israel has nukes, they don't listen to the UN or IAEA, but when Iran defies the IAEA... different set of rules huh ?? As I have said, Israel has every right to defend itself, they were the 1st country in the middle east to get nukes, you can't blame the rest for wanting to follow suit.

[Jingthing]

OK, I withdraw for now. What's the point of talking to people who spout propaganda like the whole problem in the region is Israel? More like all YOU know is demonizing Israel, it makes the situation there so SIMPLE to process, when the actual reality there is massively complex with many shades of grey.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[Pedzie]

OK, I withdraw for now. What's the point of talking to people who spout propaganda like the whole problem in the region is Israel?

Fair enough JT..

I'll re-phrase what I said ok.

The whole nuke problem in the middle east is because Israel has them, other countries like Iran don't.

Iran is signed up to the NPT Israel hasn't!

Away off topic now so I'll close with this one.

[Scott]

This topic is going seriously off-topic. It's nice that it isn't turning into a flame fest, but try to stay on-topic.

[maidu]

Although Israel is currently it's main nemesis, Iran is a threat to other countries:

A couple decades ago, it had a war with Iraq. Iran has major tensions with the Saudis and others in the immediate region. It's unelected leaders, the Immans, are a dangerous bunch, fueled by 'holier than thou' mandates placed upon the common folk - by pain of torture, jail or death.

Israel should not do a pre-emptive strike, and instead hope the fragile peace holds, like a mini cold war or MAD: 'mutually assured destruction'. The next time there's a war involving Israel (as there have been every decade or so), the Saudis might not have the self control to watch from the sidelines, and it could be that much more dire for the Israelis. Plus, Iranians, in one of its upcoming uprisings (they happen about every two years), will get closer to a constitution mandating separation of religion and state, and be on its way to being a decently run country - that is, unless the religious zealots continue their stranglehold - then war is much more likely.

Of course, the US will always be a pinata just out of reach for Iranian officaldom, but the Iranian people actually like Americans, and most would be ecstatic to have a chance at getting a green card.

Incidentally, when Iran's current political leader was giving his acceptance speech for his tainted re-election (there were riots then also), he didn't mention anything political - neither did he mention any policies, platforms, initiatives, ......nothing except a monologue praising Mohammed's daughter. That's all. Weird.

[Ulysses G.]

JT, You can't honestly believe Iran would make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Israel!

That is not at all unlikely. The Iranian Muslims believe that the 12th Mahdi (the anti-Christ to Christians) will come back when the world in in complete chaos and that it is their duty is to make it happen - by whatever means possible - and they are intent on producing a nuclear weapon.

[GentlemanJim]

I don't see the Iranian dictators as rational players. Neither does much of the world. Sense has little to do with it.

Right now, I would like to see Israel listen to Leon Panetta and his strong suggestions that they change their ways and I would also like all of the world to clamp down hard on Iran and try to stop them from developing a nuke weapons program short of war. However, I don't think the latter will work as Russia and China won't cooperate.

But the fact that you re missing in all of this is that the IAEA have not found one piece of evidence to show that the Iranians are developing any form of Nuclear Weapon. Iran signed up to the IAEA AND the NPT. It willingly let the IAEA in, yet Israel will do neither. Doesn't it bother you that there is a country with 200-300-500 Nukes out there that will not sign ANY of the international agreements on Nuclear Weapons ...Israel.

The Non Proliferation Treaty states

These five NWS (Nuclear Weapons States) agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosivedevices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II).

source, breakdown of treaty on Wiki.

So who is in breech here of the NPT? The US perchance?

The NPT also (under its third pillar) gives all signatories the right to pursue the peaceful civilian use of Nuclear Technology, AND that the NWS within the agreement will transfer that technology to those NNWS states that want to develop it. Iran has signed that treaty and has so far abided by it's rules and those of the IAEA. The only time there is a hiccup is every occasion the US and Israel want to slap more random sanctions on the country. At that time Iran then start playing hardball as well.

So to consolidate. There is no evidence to suggest Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons so why are you engaged in such war mongering talk?

[GentlemanJim]

JT, You can't honestly believe Iran would make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Israel!

That is not at all unlikely. The Iranian Muslims believe that the 12th Mahdi (the anti-Christ to Christians) will come back when the world in in complete chaos and that it is their duty is to make it happen - by whatever means possible - and they are intent on producing a nuclear weapon.

I just don't know where you get your stuff from. So now you try and perpetuate the story that the Mahdi is the anti christ?

The Twelfth Imam will return as the Mahdi with "a company of his chosen ones," and his enemies will be led by the one-eyed Antichrist and the Sufyani. The two armies will fight "one final apocalyptic battle" where the Mahdi and his forces will prevail over evil. After the Mahdi has ruled Earth for a number of years, Isa will return.^[7]

Does it all sound familiar? It is the Muslim version of the Christian biblical rapture (hardly surprising as all the monotheistic religions use the same books). The prophet returns, does battle with the anti christ and then all the good go to heaven. Amen. Same as the US bible belt bashers want. The Mahdi is NOT the anti christ. The video you link to is a complete sham. Fundamentalist Christians would gladly see an all out war in the middle east to establish Zion and signal the beginning of the rapture.

The video is from the following source

A time to betray

A site offering books and videos from an alledged CIA double agent in Iran who just happens to be anonymous. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting that wildly inaccurate propaganda crap here.

Edited December 6, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[chuckd]

But the fact that you re missing in all of this is that the IAEA have not found one piece of evidence to show that the Iranians are developing any form of Nuclear Weapon. Iran signed up to the IAEA AND the NPT. It willingly let the IAEA in, yet Israel will do neither. Doesn't it bother you that there is a country with 200-300-500 Nukes out there that will not sign ANY of the international agreements on Nuclear Weapons ...Israel.

In response to the quoted part of your post I have two comments.

1. It is worth pointing out that India and Pakistan never signed the NPT. North Korea has withdrawn their participation in NPT. Now those countries do bother me. How about you?

From the following link:

"Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity."

Article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428

2. Here is a link that might update the nuclear weapons program Iran is likely/allegedly pursuing.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-08/middleeast/world_meast_iran-nuclear_1_nuclear-program-iaea-report-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

[GentlemanJim]

But the fact that you re missing in all of this is that the IAEA have not found one piece of evidence to show that the Iranians are developing any form of Nuclear Weapon. Iran signed up to the IAEA AND the NPT. It willingly let the IAEA in, yet Israel will do neither. Doesn't it bother you that there is a country with 200-300-500 Nukes out there that will not sign ANY of the international agreements on Nuclear Weapons ...Israel.

In response to the quoted part of your post I have two comments.

1. It is worth pointing out that India and Pakistan never signed the NPT. North Korea has withdrawn their participation in NPT. Now those countries do bother me. How about you?

From the following link:

"Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity."

Article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-11709428

2. Here is a link that might update the nuclear weapons program Iran is likely/allegedly pursuing.

http://articles.cnn....s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

You can point out whatever you like Chukd. The other 3 nations that you mention have all made it clear that they possess Nuclear Weapons. Israel point blank refuses to admit it. The other 3 are not the main threat to WWIII kicking off in the Middle East. India also signed a formal treaty on non first use, in that it will never use a Nuclear Weapon unless one is fired upon India first. That fact and its conduct with its civilian Nuclear program earned it an 'exclusion' by the US administration under Bush and the US now openly trade Nuclear with India and Austrailia provide India with fissile material. The threat to the Middle East is not there.

Thank you for your link updating the 'NUclear Weapons program you say Iran is likely/allegedly pursuing. It says very early on in the article.

The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb. But its nuclear program is more ambitious and structured, and more progress has been made than previously known.

So, as I said, no evidence has been found.

We are being taken into another war on lies and the spreading of false terror in the population.

[lovetotravel]

maidu: If I am not mistaken, wikileaks said Saudi Arabia asked the US to "cut the head off the snake" in Iran? Obviously, no love lost between these two countries?

GJ: you need to read the NPT as well as the mission statement, statute and rules/regulations of the IAEA. As mentioned in the OP, they are concerned. And I would guess they know a bit more about this than you do.:jap:

http://en.wikipedia....feration_Treaty

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council). More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.^[1] Four non-parties to the treaty are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty in 1985, but never came into compliance, and announced its withdrawal in 2003.

Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.^[19] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,^[61] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.^[20] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,^[62] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.^[63] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.^[64]

The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities.^[65] In February 2008, the IAEA also reported that it was working to address "alleged studies" of weaponization, based on documents provided by certain Member States, which those states claimed originated from Iran. Iran rejected the allegations as "baseless" and the documents as "fabrications."^[66] In June 2009, the IAEA reported that Iran had not "cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues ... which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program."^[67]

[GentlemanJim]

Lovetotravel

GJ: you need to read the NPT as well as the mission statement, statute and rules/regulations of the IAEA. As mentioned in the OP, they are concerned. And I would guess they know a bit more about this than you do.

I have read it and understand it. What's your point? I think you need to understand what IAEA 'concerned' means. You also need to understand that although Director General Mohamed ElBaradel in 2003 stated Iran had failed to meet its safeguards he further stated that the IAEA had never found any evidence suggesting Iran was constructing Nuclear Weapons.

The document concerning the breeching of safeguards is

here

As soon as Iran was informed of its failings to comply with the 'quality system' it took immediate steps to implement corrective actions.

We are being taken in to another war on Lies and the spreading of false terror amongst the population!

Edited December 6, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[lovetotravel]

When was the last inspection of their nuclear facilities by "outside" observers??? Specifically, the IAEA.