UN closes the books on decade-long nuclear probe of Iran

[webfact]

UN closes the books on decade-long nuclear probe of Iran
By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) — The U.N. nuclear agency closed the books Tuesday on its decade-long probe of allegations that Iran worked on atomic arms, and Tehran proclaimed that within weeks, it would finish cutbacks on present nuclear programs that the U.S. fears could be turned into making such weapons.

The probe had to be formally ended as part of a July 14 deal between Iran and six nations that involves the removal of economic sanctions on Tehran in exchange for its commitment to crimp its nuclear program. A resolution was approved by consensus of the 35-nation board of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.

The move means that some questions about the alleged weapons work may never be resolved. Before the resolution's adoption, agency head Yukiya Amano told the board that his investigation couldn't "reconstruct all the details of activities conducted by Iran in the past."

At the same time, he repeated an assessment he made last month that Iran worked on "a range of activities relevant" to making nuclear weapons, with coordinated efforts up to 2003 tapering off into scattered activities up to 2009.

Chief Iranian delegate Reza Najafi denied such work, in keeping with his country's constant line during the protracted probe. In his statement to the board, and then to reporters outside the meeting, he said Tehran's nuclear activities "have always been for peaceful civilian or conventional military uses."

Noting that formal closure of the issue negates a series of critical IAEA resolutions against his country, he proclaimed Tuesday a "historic day" that opens the path to closer cooperation both with the agency and its member nations.

Amano hailed the "very important milestone." At the same time, he noted that — with his agency charged with monitoring Iran's commitments under a deal that extends for more than a decade — "much work needs to be done in the future.

"We cannot relax," he said. "We cannot be complacent."

Despite Iranian denials, the U.S. and its allies continue to believe that Tehran did work on components of a nuclear weapon. But their overriding interest is moving ahead to implement the July 14 deal.

Najafi, the Iranian delegate, said that — with the probe put to rest — Iran could meet its obligations under that agreement within "two or three weeks."

But it was unclear whether that time frame would include not only Iran's declaration that it has met its commitment, but also IAEA verification that it has cut back or re-engineered equipment and programs that could be used to make nuclear weapons Amano said his agency would need "some weeks" to sign off on its certification.

The deal also calls on Iran to ship to Russia most of its store of enriched uranium that is now at the level used to fuel reactors but could be further processed into the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Najafi said that transfer would be completed "within two or three days."

Once the agency confirms that Iran has met its part of the deal, most individual and international sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program will be lifted.

Western statements reflected the will to move on. The U.S. participated in drawing up the resolution ending the investigation along with the other nations that negotiated the deal with Iran — Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the resolution allows the IAEA to "turn its focus now on the full implementation and verification" of Iran's commitments to the July 14 agreement. Refraining from previous critical language, the European Union said only "we note" the agency conclusion.

At the same time, U.S. chief IAEA delegate Henry S. Ensher said the U.N. agency's assessment wasn't surprising, considering "Iran's long history of concealment, denial and deception."

Ensher also suggested the agency could again be called upon to investigate Iran, noting that the closure of the probe doesn't prevent the agency from following up on "any new concerns regarding weaponization."

Criticism came from Republican congressional opponents and Israel, both opposed to the July 14 deal that they say keeps Iran's weapons-making capacity intact.

Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called the IAEA decision a "capitulation." Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon accused Iran of being "non-cooperative and deceptive," while Israel's IAEA delegate, while Merav Zafary-Odiz, decried the "erroneous resolution" ending the probe.

"Nothing has changed," she declared. "All the indicators for the existence of a clandestine nuclear weapons development program in Iran ... are still valid."
__

Associated Press Writers Matthew Lee and Deb Riechmann in Washington and Daniella Cheslow in Jerusalem contributed.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-16

[ezzra]

Yeah well, don't put those books away just yet UN guys, the Iranian are already testing long range

intercontinental, payload bearers rockets in contrast to the agreement they have just signed not long ago.......

[oneday]

Thanks a lot Obama. You have paved the way to the bomb for Iran.

[Srikcir]

Yeah well, don't put those books away just yet UN guys, the Iranian are already testing long range

intercontinental, payload bearers rockets in contrast to the agreement they have just signed not long ago.......

Whether the missle is in violation of the Iran Nuclear Agreement is debatable. There is no concensus among UN experts that Iran violated the agreement.

Iran is not allowed to improve and test medium-range ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. This provision implies that such a missile not designed to carry nuclear warheads would be permitted. The Iranians claim that the missile would require specialized installation equipment to make it capable to carry a nulear warhead and the missile was not fitted with such equipment. The Iranians claim that purpose of the new missile design was to allow it to be precision-guided until it reaches its target.

The USA (and more likely the Republican-controlled Congress) chooses a more narrow interpretation of the agreement - any medium-range ballastic missile is inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon because it has the potential to carry an atomic payload. However, the literal language of the agreement does not ban development or improvement of medium-range ballastic missiles per se. No nation would agree to such a restriction on their sovereignty.

[Ulysses G.]

Lucky for Obama that there are always some brainwashed liberals around to spin every violation to favor Iran's lies.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Ulic]

Yeah well, don't put those books away just yet UN guys, the Iranian are already testing long range

intercontinental, payload bearers rockets in contrast to the agreement they have just signed not long ago.......

Not exactly true. They tested a medium range missile with a range of 1,200 miles.

So not an ICBM. I am sure you are still urging the continued search for WMD's in

Iraq and hopeful that Bush, Chaney, Rummy and Blair will be vindicated and

hailed for making the world the safer place it is today.

Personally I would like to see all nuclear weapons including those of China-Russia-

USA decommissioned. That said, I do understand why smaller nations want them.

They are a tremendous deterrent to attack. No nation has been invaded by another

when they have nuclear weapons. I just wish we could evolve beyond the need for

them.

[arjunadawn]

Yeah well, don't put those books away just yet UN guys, the Iranian are already testing long range

intercontinental, payload bearers rockets in contrast to the agreement they have just signed not long ago.......

Whether the missle is in violation of the Iran Nuclear Agreement is debatable. There is no concensus among UN experts that Iran violated the agreement.

Iran is not allowed to improve and test medium-range ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. This provision implies that such a missile not designed to carry nuclear warheads would be permitted. The Iranians claim that the missile would require specialized installation equipment to make it capable to carry a nulear warhead and the missile was not fitted with such equipment. The Iranians claim that purpose of the new missile design was to allow it to be precision-guided until it reaches its target.

The USA (and more likely the Republican-controlled Congress) chooses a more narrow interpretation of the agreement - any medium-range ballastic missile is inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon because it has the potential to carry an atomic payload. However, the literal language of the agreement does not ban development or improvement of medium-range ballastic missiles per se. No nation would agree to such a restriction on their sovereignty.

My car is not designed to carry skis on top. All I need is to attach a ski carrier and I am good to go- my car can now deliver skis anywhere in town. Anyone who understands ICBM/Payload will realize "peaceful exploration of space" is a stalking horse for a 'ski carrier' on top of the car. A monkey could attach it to the missile later.

Its no surprise the UN put the books away on this. The UN is a useless institution for redistributing wealth and loaning legitimacy where none was earned. It it was measured by the aims and ideals of those early architects of progressive socialism from Wilson to Hiss & other Fabian buffoons it would have even failed at that. The UN is the largest wooden horse in history, and its hollow.

[Rancid]

I find the concept of a theocracy as offensive as anyone, but who exactly was Iran going to use nukes on?

If the US or Israel then they'd be wiped off the planet, so assuming they were even pursuing nukes I would assume it would more likely be as a "leave us alone or else" scenario. Somewhat the same reason everyone else has them.

[ggt]

I fear that closing the books on Iran's nuclear ambition...is like turning on a green light and waving them ahead with their nuclear plans...it appears that with so many nations going nuclear...it is just a matter of time before some psycho decides to start a war with them...little will matter after that...

[arjunadawn]

I find the concept of a theocracy as offensive as anyone, but who exactly was Iran going to use nukes on?

If the US or Israel then they'd be wiped off the planet, so assuming they were even pursuing nukes I would assume it would more likely be as a "leave us alone or else" scenario. Somewhat the same reason everyone else has them.

The threat of Iran immediately using nukes is not on anyone's radar, I believe. A nuke's immediate and great power comes as a deterrent for conventional/unconventional war. In the case of Iran with no inclination to limit its hegemony, bellicose rhetoric, and avowed and practiced war games for assaulting neighbor states, Iran demonstrates the grave risk of immunizing it by it becoming a nuclear power. Furthermore, since it uses proxies as a tool of statecraft and other non-state actors affording it plausible deniability, having a nuke will only ratchet up its asymmetric aggression.

[h90]

Well allowed to have nukes

USA

Russia

China

Pakistan

Israel

UK

France

that is OK

Not legal

Iran

North Korea

where is the logic? IF having nuclear weapons is evil why USA is allowed to have them? If it is not why Iran is not allowed?