Trending Topics:

Netanyahu’s man in Geneva, Laurent Fabius of France

Israel/Palestine
on 85 Comments

Yesterday’s NYT coverage of the failure to produce an Iranian agreement in Geneva featured a photograph of Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister. Who is Fabius? I communicated with David Bromwich about the minister’s role, and he explained:

Fabius was at the front of Western ministers pressing for NATO to repeat its Libya performance in Syria, after the Aleppo gas attack and the Damascus five months later–both times claiming certainty, from special sources, that Assad had ordered the attack; both times out ahead of US policy and embarrassing the US by calling the “red line” bluff; and both times urging what Netanyahu was more quietly indicating as his wish.

Now he’s doing the same with the Iran negotiations: an accord almost achieved, but Fabius steps in and says no. Without this obstruction, it seems possible a preliminary agreement would have been announced. The words Fabius and France appear very prominently in the Times coverage today of the stalled discussions.

His name figured largely also in American and British (as well as French) newspaper coverage of the gas attacks and the recommended response; fast off the mark and almost calling the tune for Kerry. Meanwhile, in late August, Fabius made a visit to Israel which received major coverage there. He spoke alongside Netanyahu, saying France would be Israel’s safety net in dealings with hostile Arab governments. He did not dissociate himself from Netanyahu’s unsupported assertion that Iran was behind the gas attacks.

“Assad’s regime isn’t acting alone,” Netanyahu told journalists after a meeting with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. “Iran, and Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, are there on the ground playing an active role assisting Syria. In fact, Assad’s regime has become a full Iranian client and Syria has become Iran’s testing ground.”


That August meeting in Israel was significant for a couple of other reasons. Netanyahu had “snubbed” Fabius, with major emphasis, by saying no to repeated requests for the meeting; then, reluctantly, agreed to see him after all, at the instance of a French businessman with strong Israeli connections, a mutual friend and patron.

[Meyer] Habib, the vice president of CRIF (the umbrella Representative Council of the Jewish Institutions in France), was Netanyahu’s unofficial representative in Paris and helped organize several meetings for him with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy when Netanyahu was opposition leader.

One sticking point had been Fabius’s public statements that Palestine was an essential problem for the region to solve and that Israel was responsible for helping to solve it. Netanyahu took the occasion of that August visit to correct Fabius on the subject of Palestine. [In the video below, Netanyahu lectured Fabius, saying that there’s a delusion in the west that the Palestinian conflict is “the root cause of this instability” in the Middle East, when actually is it “one of the results of the Middle East turmoil.”]

Still, the French minister hung in–and again now, on Iran, is doing what Israel would like to see done, though it goes against U.S. diplomacy. What is in this for France? Technology? access to Israeli intelligence? security equipment for detection of homegrown threats?

On Fareed Zakaria today, there was an interesting moment. Kenneth Pollack (who along with Peter Beinart has become one of the few neoliberals of the Iraq war party to see they were wrong and to change) was asked by Zakaria about the spoiler position of Fabius. He replied that he didn’t know the meaning of what Fabius was up to. The suggestion was he saw or guessed the meaning of it plainly.

Today Bromwich pointed me to Christopher Dickey’s piece at Daily Beast, Why France is to blame for blocking the Iran nuclear agreement. “He starts out lazy– ‘it is that they are French’, but gets more solid by the end. Dickey: 

Under Sarkozy and his longtime Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, the Quai’s policies came to be increasingly dominated by the French version of American neo-cons, many of them former leftists who preached the spread of democracy and dreamed of remaking the Middle East, if necessary, through war.

Sarkozy liked to say if he’d been president in 2003 he’d have backed the American-led invasion of Iraq; Kouchner let it be known he thought an armed confrontation with Iran was more or less inevitable.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

85 Responses

  1. just
    just
    November 11, 2013, 11:08 am

    History will prove this man irrelevant and terribly wrong.

    So sorry for France and for this Foreign Minister — somehow he did not get the message that French is traditionally the “language of diplomacy”. He appears to be an Imperial Socialist, and an obstruction to peace and diplomacy.

    Another warmonger, liar and tool of Zionism.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      November 11, 2013, 11:19 am

      If the Aipac espionage case had ever gone to trial Pollack would have been confirmed as an agent for a foreign country along with Rosen and Weissman accessing classified documents and part of the foreign agents team to undermine U.S. foreign policy negotiations.

      Pollack belongs behind bars for his part in pushing the bloody Iraq invasion and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      November 11, 2013, 11:43 am

      Fabious mother is jewish i believe, although converted to christianity apparently..

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        November 11, 2013, 12:39 pm

        Justpassingby says: Fabious mother is jewish i believe …
        ===================================
        How is that relevant?

    • Tuyzentfloot
      Tuyzentfloot
      November 11, 2013, 3:15 pm

      Another warmonger, liar and tool of Zionism.

      Or maybe France is just looking after its own perceived interests and the saudis and israelis are doing what they can to make it in the interest of France to align itself with them. That does not convert France into a tool – in my stubbornly bland view.

  2. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    November 11, 2013, 11:15 am

    Kenneth Pollack another war pusher who slides through cracks . The man wrote a book filled with false claims pushing the invasion of Iraq.

    http://www.jta.org/2005/08/30/archive/prominent-mideast-analyst-says-hes-u-s-official-in-case-of-ex-aipac-men
    “Mideast analyst Kenneth Pollack is one of two U.S. government officials referenced in the indictment against two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, JTA has learned. But Pollack, who was a staffer on President Clinton’s National Security Council, said he didn’t give the AIPAC staffers any classified information. Pollack also said the information that Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s former director of foreign policy issues, is accused of passing on to a reporter could not have come from him.

    “I believe I am USGO-1,” Pollack told JTA on Monday, using a term in the indictment for U.S. Government Official No. 1.

    A second source, speaking on condition of anonymity, has verified the information.

    Neither Pollack nor the other unnamed government official — identified by sources as David Satterfield, a former deputy assistant secretary of state — has been charged with a crime. That has raised questions about the government’s case against Rosen, former AIPAC Iran analyst Keith Weissman and Larry Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst accused of passing classified information to the AIPAC staffers.”

    “The two men’s interaction with Pollack and Satterfield is believed to be central to the prosecutors’ case that Rosen and Weissman engaged in a pattern of seeking classified information and disseminating it to journalists and the Israeli government.”

    Pollack is up to his neck in the blood of the Iraqi people and American soldiers who are dead or injured because of his pack of lies as well as all other very guilty parties in the run up to that invasion.

    He should absolutely be required to sign up under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

    Aipac selected case files
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/index.html

    I believe Kenneth Pollack is USGO1 in the dismissed (Jane Harman and Saban’s waddling on over to interfere in a federal investigation) Aipac espionage case. Page 8 of this file refers to USGO1
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/index.html

  3. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    November 11, 2013, 11:29 am

    Prof Cole has one up about Fabius
    http://www.juancole.com/2013/11/france-crashes-scuttles.html
    “Then French foreign minister Laurent Fabius showed up and threw cold water on the whole process. He clearly was attempting to torpedo the agreement, rejecting the whole notion of a six-month confidence-building period without substantial Iranian concessions. In the French system, the foreign minister doesn’t typically have a lot of autonomy, so Fabius was almost certainly acting at the orders of Socialist President Francois Hollande, who is way down in the polls and may feel the need to seem strong internationally, asserting himself against the US and Iran. The arrogance of the US and the perfidy of the far right religious government in Tehran are two things that both center-right and center-left French can agree upon. Hollande, having intervened in Mali, seems to want to throw his weight around in the Middle East. He may see an opportunity for France to come up in the world now that much of the Arab world and Israel is angry at Washington for its opening toward Iran. The US for decades has pulled off a balancing act of allying both with Israel and Saudi Arabia, in part by pointing to the danger of Iran to both. Since Obama seems to be abandoning that ploy, Paris may think there is a vacuum that it can fill.”

    Over at Foreign Policy too:
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/10/how-france-scuttled-the-iran-deal-last-minute
    ” Beyond the rhetoric, France’s opposition to the deal carries clear risks. The U.S. negotiators and their Iranian counterparts have both warned that the window for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue won’t stay open forever. Not too long from now, Iran will have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. If the talks fall apart, France may have effectively scuttled any option of ending Iran’s nuclear program without using military force, something no country — including Israel — wants to do. Paris also risks seriously degrading its relationships with Washington and London, its two closest allies.

    “If weeks from now a deal is signed which forces Iran to even greater compromises, the French will come out well,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But if months from now diplomacy has fallen apart and conflict appears more likely, the French could go down in infamy.”

  4. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    November 11, 2013, 11:33 am

    Hope Reid stands by what he has said.
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/08/youre_going_to_see_the_dam_break_loose_congress_poised_to_pounce_on_iran_deal

    “Meanwhile, a restless Senate Banking Committee is poised to move ahead with a new package of sanctions on Iran. The committee’s chairman, Tim Johnson, told Reuters that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has approved the markup, or debate, of the bill. However, Reid said the bill would not move to the Senate floor for a vote until the Geneva meeting is over. “

  5. Walid
    Walid
    November 11, 2013, 11:48 am

    Laurent Fabius, it should be mentioned, has over 30 years of service in the government in various posts, among them that of Prime Minister. Odd that with all the talk of closeness between Fabius and Israel and of his being French version of a neocon, no one has come close to mentioning his Jewish roots. His Jewish parents converted to Catholicism and raised him as a Catholic. He still must feel a little something towards the Jewish state and its welfare, it’s only natural. There are 3 other Jews in Hollande’s Cabinet.

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      November 11, 2013, 1:29 pm

      @ Walid

      No doubt you’re about to be castigated by the usual suspects for “antisemitism” for mentioning all that.

      Which will be funny considering Zionism maintains a Jew is a Jew irrespective of religion (how many Zionist Jews were atheist or agnostic? It’s obvious religion isn’t one of the criteria) and the recent call of Nutter-yahoo for Jews in the USA to ditch any loyalty to the state of their birth and residence for loyalty to Israel. For which he was NOT heckled into oblivion.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 11, 2013, 3:57 pm

        “@ Walid No doubt you’re about to be castigated by the usual suspects for “antisemitism” for mentioning all that.”

        I don’t think so, Ecru, smart Jews know that I don’t hate Jews at all, my problem is with Zionists that are keeping Palestinians out. So there is nothing wrong in my reminding here that the 4 Jews in Hollande’s Cabinet had to have influenced the French torpedo launched on the Iranian negotiations and so did Hollande scheduled visit to Israel next week where the Knesset members had threatened to walk out if Hollande spoke there. The spooked Hollande was finally convinced to speak there. BTW, Hollande has some Muslims too in his Cabinet but these too aren’t making him any smarter for it.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        November 11, 2013, 4:20 pm

        @ Walid

        I think you misunderstood me. By “usual suspects” I meant the Ziobots that hang around just waiting for something, anything, they can call “antisemitism” irrespective of it being a logical or honest accusation or not.

    • American
      American
      November 11, 2013, 5:23 pm

      “He still must feel a little something towards the Jewish state and its welfare, it’s only natural” Walid

      Not necessarily……could be he’s just a well paid supporter. Plently of well paid non Jewish Israel helpers out there. Look at the US congress and the msm…. lol

  6. Ira Glunts
    Ira Glunts
    November 11, 2013, 12:06 pm

    Nice background, Phil. Thanks.

    To add just one more small item, I remember reading that the during his August visit to Israel Fabius said he would devote himself to weakening or scuttling (I do not remember which) the EU sanctions on Israeli entities who are connected to the settlements.

    Kerry in the NYTimes today indicated that the P5 + 1 powers are supporting the French reservations.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/world/middleeast/kerry-tries-to-reassure-mideast-allies-on-iran.html?emc=edit_tnt_20131111&tntemail0=y

    Addressing a report that French reservations had delayed a deal at the talks in Geneva, Mr. Kerry said that the major powers were united but the Iranian delegation had not been able to accept it.

    “The French signed off on it, we signed off on it,” Mr. Kerry said. “There was unity but Iran couldn’t take it,” he said.

    According to the Israeli press, the Israelis are claiming that the U.S. gave them a false picture of what was being proposed at the nuclear talks.

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      November 11, 2013, 12:35 pm

      Nonsense by kerry, he only tries to protect israeli and french interests.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 11, 2013, 6:15 pm

        Not that do much.

        This rift in the P5+1 makes them look weak and disorganized. It could well lead to the sanctions falling apart entirely as the world behins to realize that the Iranuans are the ones who are being reasonable, and that the P5+1 can’t get their act together.

  7. Citizen
    Citizen
    November 11, 2013, 12:31 pm
  8. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    November 11, 2013, 12:40 pm

    Wendy Sherman, lead negotiator to the Geneva talks is a racist liar, in her testimony to the Senate Foreign relations committee she said “It has always been the U.S. position that Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment at all [and] doesn’t speak to enrichment, period. It simply says that you have the right to research and development.”

    Sherman goes on to acknowledge that “many countries such as Japan and Germany have taken that [uranium enrichment] to be a right.” But, she says, “the United States does not take that position. We take the position that we look at each one of these [cases].” Or, as she put it at the beginning of her response to Sen. Rubio, “It has always been the U.S. position that Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment at all” (emphasis added).

    Two points should be made here. First, the claim that the NPT’s Article IV does not affirm the right of non-nuclear-weapons states to pursue indigenous development of fuel-cycle capabilities, including uranium enrichment, under international safeguards is flat-out false. http://goingtotehran.com/americas-lead-iran-negotiator-misrepresents-u-s-policy-and-international-law-to-congress. This woman either does not know what she is talking about, or is telling bare faced lies, her racist comments can also be found in the same link “Going to Iran.” above. It’s such incompetence that could set the stage for World war 3.

  9. Walid
    Walid
    November 11, 2013, 12:43 pm

    Laurent Fabius was a speaker at the infamous meeting of July 4, 2011 at the Cinema Saint-Germain in Paris to discuss the war that was just starting in Syria (1100 dead at that point) called by Bernard-Henri Lévy that brought together Zionists, members of the Syrian opposition and senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood. François Hollande sent a mesage of his solidarity with the Syrian opposition. Zionist heavy hitters also present were André Glucksman, Alex Goldfarb, B-H Lévy, of course, Bernard Kouchner, Axel Poniatowski and Frédéric Encel.

    July 4, 2011 when that meeting was held, the Syrian civil war had barely started and already the 3 groups were getting ready to accelerate it. Video below is of Laurent Fabius’ speech at the Paris convention on Syria in July 2011 calling for all out war on Assad:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjs29p_sos-syrie-intervention-de-laurent-fabius-la-regle-du-jeu_news

    • Castellio
      Castellio
      November 11, 2013, 4:35 pm

      Thank you for pointing to the dailymotion clip.

      Fabius begins by making it very clear that not acting in Syria will bring into question Western actions in Libya and Tunisia. He goes on to ask that we not “psychologize” our relation to Syria (and makes fun of those who believe Asad’s Western ways will limit his violence) but only deal with facts. From there he moves relatively quickly, after a one-sided list of ‘facts’, to call for increased sanctions of businesses and their financial intermediaries dealing with Syria. Quoting Herodotus, he ends with a rather conventional appeal that while no-one wants war sometimes it is necessary, as it is in the case of Bashar al-Asad, who commits war against his own people.

      In other words, his appeal is one of continuing the ‘Arab Spring’ against dictatorship. Whatever he may be thinking of the larger geopolitical realities, he doesn’t mention them. No mention at all of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, the safety of minorities, or the Sunni-Shia divide, or even of the nationality of the ‘Syrian” rebels. He mentions Russia in passing, but in the context of the BRIC countries, which he believes can be moved by international pressure.

      Fabius strictly holds to the ‘dictator versus freedom’ framing of the issue, as if those are the clear options. His discourse is a personably presented front.

      On the other hand, Bernard Kouchner, in his short presentation, speaks directly of breaking the Hezbolah, Syrian, Iranian axis (his words) by creating a ‘democratic’ Syria. It is clear that he sees the Russian-China coordination as a serious irritation. He speaks of the Syrian minorities and their fears, but dispels them due to the promises of a plural, democratic Syria. His naiveté on this is too obvious to be real.

      Kouchner is clear about what he wants to do, and believes the ‘democratic’ argument helps achieve that. However, for those who watch, at 6.50 he says, while smiling, that he hopes the ‘Arab Spring’ in all these countries will remain democratic. I think the smile says it all: he knows it won’t.

      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjs2pq_sos-syrie-intervention-de-bernard-kouchner-la-regle-du-jeu_news

  10. Ludwig
    Ludwig
    November 11, 2013, 1:08 pm

    Thank you My. Fabius! You may have just saved the world.

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      November 11, 2013, 2:13 pm

      RE: “Thank you My. Fabius! You may have just saved the world.” ~ Ludwig

      MY REPLY: Au contraire! The French are responsible for the introduction of nuclear weapons into the Middle East!

      REGARDING FRANCE’S ROLE, SEE: “How Israel Out-Foxed US Presidents”, By Morgan Strong (A Special Report), ConsortiumNews.com, 5/31/10

      [EXCERPT] ● Secret Nukes and JFK
      . . . Even as it backed down in the Sinai [following its invasion in 1956], Israel was involved in another monumental deception, a plan for building its own nuclear arsenal.
      In 1956, Israel had concluded an agreement with France to build a nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. Israel also signed a secret agreement with France to build an adjacent plutonium reprocessing plant.
      Israel began constructing its nuclear plant in 1958. However, French President Charles de Gaulle was worried about nuclear weapons destabilizing the Middle East and insisted that Israel not develop a nuclear bomb from the plutonium processing plant. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion assured de Gaulle that the processing plant was for peaceful purposes only.

      After John F. Kennedy became President, he also wrote to Ben-Gurion explicitly calling on Israel not to join the nuclear-weapons club, drawing another pledge from Ben-Gurion that Israel had no such intention.
      Nevertheless, Kennedy continued to press, forcing the Israelis to let U.S. scientists inspect the nuclear reactor at Dimona. But the Israelis first built a fake control room while bricking up and otherwise disguising parts of the building that housed the plutonium processing plant.
      In return for allowing inspectors into Dimona, Ben-Gurion also demanded that the United States sell Hawk surface-to-air missiles to the Israeli military. Kennedy agreed to the sale as a show of good faith.
      Subsequently, however, the CIA got wind of the Dimona deception and leaked to the press that Israel was secretly building a nuclear bomb.
      After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson also grew concerned over Israel’s acquiring nuclear weapons. He asked then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
      Eshkol assured Johnson that Israel was studying the matter and would sign the treaty in due course. However, Israel has never signed the treaty and never has admitted that it developed nuclear weapons. [For details, See “Israel and The Bomb” by Avner Cohen.] . . .

      ENTIRE REPORT – http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/053110.htm

  11. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    November 11, 2013, 1:50 pm

    RE: “Kenneth Pollack was asked by Zakaria about the spoiler position of Fabius. He replied that he didn’t know the meaning of what Fabius was up to. The suggestion was he saw or guessed the meaning of it plainly.” ~ Weiss

    ● SEE: “After Reportedly Being Offered Saudi Weapons Sales, France Tries to Blow Up Iran Deal”, emptywheel.net, 11/09/13
    LINK – http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/11/09/after-reportedly-being-offered-saudi-weapons-sales-france-blows-up-iran-deal/

    ● AND SEE: “French Sabotaged Iran Pact for Arms Deal”, by Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 11/10/13
    LINK – http://news.antiwar.com/2013/11/10/french-sabotaged-iran-pact-for-arms-deal/

    ● FINALLY, SEE: ‘Israel will attack Iran if you sign the deal, French MP told Fabius’, timesofisrael.com, 11/10/13
    LINK – http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-will-attack-if-you-sign-the-deal-french-mp-told-fabius/

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ● P.S. TAKE ACTION! TAKE ACTION! TAKE ACTION!
    Tell Your Senators: No More Sanctions
    When Iran got down to the real business of talking with the US and other countries on October 15, it was clear that they were interested in more than a ‘charm offensive.’ US diplomats optimistically noted that the tone and substance of talks had changed. There’s promise for a negotiated deal, but that good news could turn bad if the Senate isn’t careful.

    Take action before next week’s talks to help diplomacy win.

    Despite the positive signs coming out of the first round of negotiations, some Senators want to move forward with additional sanctions. The Obama administration has asked Congress to hold off, but there are loud, powerful groups pushing for Congress to play ‘bad cop’ in the game of diplomacy. Sheldon Adelson, a GOP megadonor, went so far as to suggest that the US launch a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran.

    Will Congress stand with President Obama or with extremist hawks?

    The next round of talks is happening at the beginning of November. More punishment from the US before the November talks could empower hardliners in Iran and make it harder for Iran’s president to negotiate. When you undermine diplomatic solutions, you head toward war.

    Tell your Senators not to undermine diplomacy with Iran.
    TO SEND AN EMAIL OPPOSING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS – http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/speakout/no-more-sanctions

  12. Hostage
    Hostage
    November 11, 2013, 3:33 pm

    Still, the French minister hung in–and again now, on Iran, is doing what Israel would like to see done, though it goes against U.S. diplomacy. What is in this for France? Technology? access to Israeli intelligence? security equipment for detection of homegrown threats?

    It’s anyone’s guess. Meanwhile French President François Hollande has been declared persona non grata in Knesset by Speaker Yuli Edelstein: “Edelstein declares French president persona non grata in Knesset” http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Edelstein-declares-French-president-persona-non-grata-in-Knesset-330151

    • Walid
      Walid
      November 11, 2013, 4:10 pm

      Hostage, revised story in JP says he will speak in Knesset next Monday. His “grata” wagon got fixed with the torpedo launched by Fabius.

      http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/French-President-Hollande-to-address-Knesset-next-week-331169

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 11, 2013, 5:01 pm

        His “grata” wagon got fixed with the torpedo launched by Fabius.

        True enough, but I still doubt that really answers Phil’s question: “What is in this for France?” I doubt that he’ll even get a T-Shirt for speaking at the Knesset.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 11, 2013, 5:30 pm

        Hostage, the Jews in France number 500,000 and the Jewish lobby there is second in strength only to the American one. Maybe that’s what’s in it for for Hollande. Pressure is already there by the 2 lobbies working together at getting Nissan/Renault to stop selling cars and auto parts in Iran. In NYC, de Blasio is doing his part keeping the Jewish electorate happy by campaigning against both companies because of their dealings in Iran and putting Nissan’s billion dollar contract to supply NYC with 16,000 new ecolo-cabs at risk. Hollande’s popularity at home is now the pits. This morning in his drive down the Champs-Elysées after the ceremonies at the tomb of the unknown soldier, he was actually booed by the bystanders lined-up on both sides of the Champs and one of the bystanders had to be wrestled to the ground by the police as he tried to throw something at the motorcade.

      • American
        American
        November 11, 2013, 5:38 pm

        I think Walid you may have hit upon what one of the deals is with France and Israel on Iran in this post on another thread.
        Would be typical mo of the zios. Tell France they will call off the law suits against the France’s railways if France can scuttle a Iran deal and make sure they get that juicy US contract also:

        Walid says:
        November 11, 2013 at 4:47 pm
        + Show content
        After the Swiss banks, there is talk about going after the insurance companies and they are now on the case of the French railways, the “Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français” since last year because during the war, the company had obeyed the Nazi’s orders to transport 77,000 French Jews to the camps and was paid for it. Now the American “lobby” is getting involved by passing an act in the Senate that would allow Holocaust survivors to claim against the French Railways:

        “Holocaust Survivors Applaud Senate Re-Introduction of Holocaust Rail Justice Act

        August 6, 2013

        Bi-Partisan Senators Back Bill Aiding Justice for Holocaust Survivors

        July 31, 2013

        The Coalition for Holocaust Rail Justice – a coalition of Holocaust survivors, family members, historians and volunteers — today applauded Senator Charles Schumer and colleagues from both parties for re-introducing the Holocaust Rail Justice Act in the U.S. Senate. The legislation would provide Holocaust survivors a forum to bring claims against the French rail company, Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français (SNCF) for the commission of war crimes by permitting jurisdiction in U.S. courts.

        “The Holocaust Rail Justice Act would finally enable survivors and family members to hold this French rail company accountable in a court of law for sending thousands to their death during World War II, and allow survivors and family members an opportunity for justice,” Schumer said in a press release announcing the Senate reintroduction.

        SNCF transported tens of thousands of Jews and other so-called undesirables toward death camps during World War II. The company, which was paid per head and per kilometer for these transports, has never paid reparations or been held accountable for its actions. Today, SNCF and its American subsidiaries are seeking lucrative, taxpayer-funded rail contracts in the United States.

        “It has been more than 70 years since the first SNCF transports from Drancy toward Nazi death camps, yet I still remember the haunting night I jumped from an SNCF train bound for Auschwitz as if it was yesterday,” said Leo Bretholz, a Baltimore resident who is one of roughly 650 SNCF victims seeking justice from the French rail company for its role in the Holocaust. “While SNCF works to whitewash its image with its public relations spin campaign, my fellow survivors and I will continue to tell the story and fight for justice.”

        link to holocaustrailvictims.org

        French Railways is currently bidding on a TGV line for Florida and another for California and American lawmakers have threatened it that if it doesn’t go along with the holocaust reparations, it will be taken out of the bidding for the 2 proposed rail lines”.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 11, 2013, 11:35 pm

        “Hollande’s popularity at home is now the pits.”

        Why? Perhaps “De France” would have been a better last name.

  13. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    November 11, 2013, 4:00 pm

    I think the main reason talk’s broke down is over the issue of Iranian nuclear enrichment to any level on Iranian soil. The Nuclear non-proliferation treaty does in fact give non nuclear weapons states the right to enrich for peaceful nuclear energy, the Geneva meetings hoped that Iran would agree to a 6 month freeze on enrichment and give time for a more lasting solution [meaning, in my opinion a permanent freeze on enrichment] to be agreed in the follow up negotiations, we have been here before, some years ago when Iran agreed, as confidence building measures, to suspend enrichment for 12 months, the US simply pocketed the concession and carried on the sanctions. The bottom line as far as the Israelis go and I submit, the US as well [witness Sherman’s testimony to the Senate committee in my comment above] there she say’s Iran has no right to enrichment, full stop. With this huge misunderstanding or should I say deliberate distortion of what the NPT actually say’s by the US side, no agreement is possible in the foreseeable future.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      November 11, 2013, 4:47 pm

      The bottom line as far as the Israelis go and I submit, the US as well [witness Sherman’s testimony to the Senate committee in my comment above] there she say’s Iran has no right to enrichment, full stop. With this huge misunderstanding or should I say deliberate distortion of what the NPT actually say’s by the US side, no agreement is possible in the foreseeable future.

      That’s not quite the bottom line. The US managed to obtain several Chapter 7 Security Council resolutions, including 1696 (2006) which cited article 40 of the Charter and:

      2. Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA;

      http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1696%20%282006%29

      So the UN sanctions can’t be lifted while any enrichment is still taking place. The ICJ has already ruled in the US/UK vs Libya (Lockerbie Extradition) case that Article 103 of the UN Charter is a supremacy clause that prevails in the event of conflict with another treaty, like the NPT. France can veto any attempt by Kerry to repeal resolution 1696.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      November 11, 2013, 6:51 pm

      Sorry Harry but you are wrong.

      I think the main reason talk’s broke down is over the issue of Iranian nuclear enrichment to any level on Iranian soil.

      That is not true.

      The parties were about to agree to stop Agreement. Under the agreement Iran. Enrichment to 6 months. During this time the parties then draw a more permanent agreement.

      The Nuclear non-proliferation treaty does in fact give non nuclear weapons states the right to enrich for peaceful nuclear energy

      You’re incorrect and this article explains why.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-o-beeman/does-iran-have-the-right-_b_4181347.html

      In fact there is no mention in the NPT of nuclear weapons states having the exclusive right to enrich.

      • HarryLaw
        HarryLaw
        November 12, 2013, 6:14 am

        Shingo @ “In fact there is no mention in the NPT of nuclear weapons states having the exclusive right to enrich”. That’s correct, the article by professor Beeman in the Huffington post states in my opinion correctly that Iran does in fact have the right under the NPT to enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes, the Leverett’s in their article here.http://goingtotehran.com/americas-lead-iran-negotiator-misrepresents-u-s-policy-and-international-law-to-congress confirm that fact “There have been many first-rate analyses demonstrating that the right to safeguarded enrichment under the NPT is crystal clear—from the Treaty itself, from its negotiating history, and from subsequent practice, with at least a dozen non-weapons states building fuel-cycle infrastructures potentially capable of supporting weapons programs”. The UNSC have said that Iran should suspend it’s enrichment for peaceful use of nuclear energy until it complies with it’s commitments under the IAEA, but that is a separate matter, since the UNSC have never made a determination that Iran could not enrich for peaceful purposes under the NPT with all the safeguards set out by the IAEA in place.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 12, 2013, 6:50 am

        The UNSC have said that Iran should suspend it’s enrichment for peaceful use of nuclear energy until it complies with it’s commitments under the IAEA, but that is a separate matter, since the UNSC have never made a determination that Iran could not enrich for peaceful purposes under the NPT with all the safeguards set out by the IAEA in place.

        No, they demanded that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities to be verified by the IAEA – and Iran has bases, like Parchin with hundreds of buildings and underground facilities like the Fodor site near Qom, that the IAEA has not been allowed to visit or perform continuous on-site inspections.

      • HarryLaw
        HarryLaw
        November 12, 2013, 7:39 am

        Hostage @ “No, they demanded that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities to be verified by the IAEA –” Yes, that is what I said or inferred, however the point I am making is that under the NPT Iran does have the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes [now suspended under UNSC Resolution 1696] and in that view Professor Beeman, the Leverett’s and definitive legal analysis from many sources agree, the US position put forward by Wendy Sherman even before UNSC Resolution 1696 was voted on, was that Iran did not have the right under the NPT to enrich for peaceful purposes even with all the safeguards in place, are you agreeing with the US position?

      • HarryLaw
        HarryLaw
        November 12, 2013, 8:08 am

        Under the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states were forbidden from acquiring nuclear weapons, however, in return for surrendering their right to make nuclear weapons the non-nuclear-weapon states were granted the right to develop nuclear technology for exclusively peaceful purposes. Article 1V[1] of the treaty makes this completely clear: Nothing in this treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles 1 and 2 of this treaty.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 12, 2013, 8:12 am

        No, they demanded that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities to be verified by the IAEA – and Iran has bases, like Parchin with hundreds of buildings and underground facilities like the Fodor site near Qom, that the IAEA has not been allowed to visit or perform continuous on-site inspections.

        The IAEA was allowed to inspect Parchin twice in 2005. The reported that they found nothing nefarious.

        On 17 September 2004 IAEA head Muhammad El Baradei said his organization had found no sign of nuclear-related activity at the Parchin site in Iran, which several US officials had said might be tied to secret nuclear weapons research. “We are aware of this new site that has been referred to,” he said. “We do not have any indication that this site has any nuclear-related activities. However, we will continue to investigate this and other sites, we’ll continue to have a dialogue with Iran.” El Baradei also dismissed allegations that he had supressed information about Parchin in his latest report on inspections in Iran.
        On 5 January 2005 Mohamed El Baradei said “we expect to visit Parchin within the next days or a few weeks.” Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the Parchin military site in January 2005 in the interests of transparency following the allegations of secret nuclear weapons related activity, but the visit was limited to only one of four areas identified as being of potential interest and to only five buildings in that area.

        On 1 March 2005 Iran turned down a request by the IAEA to make a second visit to the Parchin military site, which has been linked in allegations to nuclear weapons testing. The IAEA was finally allowed access to the Parchin facility in November 2005. The IAEA reported in 2006 that they did not observe any unusual activities in the buildings visited at Parchin, and the results of the analysis of environmental samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations. No further mention of Parchin as a suspected nuclear site had been made by the IAEA as of July 2008.
        http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/parchin-2.htm

        The trouble all started when Yukia Amano was elected as head of the IAEA. Washington has to lobby fiercely for 6 rounds of voting to have him appointed. Wikileaks subsequently revealed he was completely compromised. The US embassy in Geneva send a cable to Washington, announcing that Amano was ready for the big time. Amano thanked the US for their support and vowed to carry their water on the Iran issue.

        Furthermore, the Nuclear Safeguards Agreement stipulates that the IAEA is only permitted to inspect declared nuclear sites, and Parchin was not one of them, so Iran were under no obligation to allow access to the site. Even now, Iran has said they would allow inspections of Parchin so long as the IAEA agrees to close the book on it once they have inspected it.

        As for Fordow, the IAEA has oversight of the facility 24/7.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        Tuyzentfloot
        November 12, 2013, 8:25 am

        Hostage, Parchin is a military site that has no enrichment related activities. The IAEA insists on revisiting places where previously they’ve concluded there were no enrichment related activities. So I think that’s yet another case, namely whether to apply the extended NPT protocol.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 12, 2013, 9:23 am

        however the point I am making is that under the NPT Iran does have the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes

        I think all of the experts are talking past each other just a little bit.

        Neither the terms “enrichment” nor “safeguarded enrichment” that are being discussed appear in the text of the treaty. The two terms are not interchangeable or synonymous.

        No one can suggest that Iran has an inalienable right to “safeguarded enrichment” under the terms of the treaty, while at one and the same time it’s rather stubbornly refusing to undertake or accept the safeguards required by the IAEA to pursue peaceful research and production in accordance with Article III(1)-(4) of the treaty. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml

        As Iran’s top nuclear negotiator from 2003-2005, Rouhani negotiated a suspension of Iran’s uranium-enrichment with the European Union. But at the same time, Iran increased its number of assembled centrifuges, and started construction of an undisclosed underground enrichment facility with 300 gas centrifuges. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2013/1008/Do-the-US-and-Iran-need-trust-to-strike-a-nuclear-deal

        IAEA Director General Mohamed El-Baradei asserted that undisclosed construction of that underground enrichment facility at Fordow violated the explicit terms of Iran’s IAEA Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/214).
        http://www.nti.org/facilities/165/

        Now, its a fact that the IAEA and Western intelligence agencies reported the existence of the facility and shamed the Iranian government into admitting its existence. That was several years after Security Council resolution 1696 was adopted (on the strength of many other unfavorable IAEA reports).

        So orchestrated outrage over the DNA comment aside, there have obviously been pathological liars on both sides of the negotiating table for years and one of the individuals responsible for much of the current distrust and deception was our new best friend, Rouhani.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 12, 2013, 9:52 am

        Under the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states were forbidden from acquiring nuclear weapons, however, in return for surrendering their right to make nuclear weapons the non-nuclear-weapon states were granted the right to develop nuclear technology for exclusively peaceful purposes. Article 1V[1] of the treaty makes this completely clear:

        “Nothing in this treaty” is a limitation of scope and Article 103 of the UN Charter constitutes “something” which isn’t part of that treaty.

        The UN Charter says that Iran and the members have agreed to accept provisional measures adopted by the Security Council acting on their behalf, and to carry out those decisions without prejudice to the claims and rights of the parties involved. It also says that Iran and every member accepts the stipulation in Article 103 that the portions of the Charter on the role of the Security Council and provisional measures prevail over anything to the contrary that can be found in the text of another convention, including the NPT. Iran is a party to both treaties. The one prevails over the other in the event of any conflict.

        Now if there is a legitimate dispute over the interpretation of those treaties, there is a well-worn path to the ICJ, which is the only Court with general jurisdiction to resolve disputes over interpretations of treaties, including the Charter and the NPT Iran has been there before and doesn’t need any directions on how to get there again.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 12, 2013, 10:25 am

        The IAEA insists on revisiting places where previously they’ve concluded there were no enrichment related activities.

        Well, there is a published safeguard agreement between Iran and the IAEA, INFCIRC/214. That contains a dispute resolution arbitration procedure and safeguard procedures. Article 28 explains that: “The objective of the safeguards procedures . . . is the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities to the manufacture of nuclear weapons or of other nuclear explosive devices or for purposes unknown, and deterrence of such diversion by the risk of early detection. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf

        There are non-proscribed military uses of fissionable material that are not subject to the safeguard plan (Article 14), so long as during the period of non-application of safeguards the material is used only in a peaceful nuclear activity by the military and isn’t used in explosive devices (like the explosion chamber at Parchin).

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 12, 2013, 5:47 pm

        The trouble all started when Yukia Amano was elected as head of the IAEA.

        I already gave you a link which explained the purpose of the safeguards regime is early detection of unauthorized diversions and research directed at proscribed military purposes, while accounting for all fissionable material and unauthorized weapons or explosives activities. It’s not a one time deal.

        In any event, the Security Council resolutions were adopted on the basis of reports from the IAEA, which said that its verifications of Iranian declarations since 2002 had revealed concealment of a number of Iran’s nuclear activities, the nature of those activities and other issues that prevented it from providing the required assurances about Iran’s undeclared nuclear material and activities after more than three years.
        * http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm
        * http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf
        * http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf
        * http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-67.pdf

        It has always been clear that the Security Council would allow Iran to pursue enrichment once it halted enrichment and suspect activities long enough to put in place a safeguard regime designed to provide the necessary assurances. See for example SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN FOR FAILURE TO HALT URANIUM ENRICHMENT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1737 (2006) Measures Will Be Lifted if Iran Suspends Suspect Activities; Report Due from Atomic Energy Agency on Compliance within 60 Days http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm

        So there is no point in quoting globalsecurity.org summaries that don’t really address the specific problems the Security Council and IAEA were concerned about. I already gave you a link which explained that work on a railway tunnel in 2002 morphed onto an undisclosed underground facility with 300 gas centrifuges just a few years later and that El Baradei had agreed it was a flagrant violation of the safeguard agreement. So no, the problems with undisclosed and suspect activities didn’t just begin when Yukia Amano was elected as head of the IAEA, they were there all along.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 12, 2013, 6:10 pm

        No one can suggest that Iran has an inalienable right to “safeguarded enrichment” under the terms of the treaty, while at one and the same time it’s rather stubbornly refusing to undertake or accept the safeguards required by the IAEA to pursue peaceful research and production in accordance with Article III(1)-(4) of the treaty.

        Sorry, but there is no evidence that Iran is refusing to undertake or accept the safeguards required by the IAEA to pursue peaceful research and production in accordance with Article III(1)-(4) of the treaty.

        The accusations labelled against Iran have been based on heresay. What’s more, the treaty does not mention anything about the rights of signatories to be denied any inalienable rights for failing to do so.

        But at the same time, Iran increased its number of assembled centrifuges, and started construction of an undisclosed underground enrichment facility with 300 gas centrifuges.

        Again, irrelevant. The IAEA and Iran agreed suspension of Iran’s uranium-enrichment meant the suspension of produciton of enriched uranium, not any activities related to enrichment faculties themselves. This has made clear a few weeks back on MW.

        IAEA Director General Mohamed El-Baradei asserted that undisclosed construction of that underground enrichment facility at Fordow violated the explicit terms of Iran’s IAEA Safeguards Agreement

        Again that is a matter of dispute. El-Baradei’s assertion was based on the presumption that Iran was bound by the additional protocols which Iran had only temporarily accepted for the duration of the Paris agreement.

        The Agreement stipulates that Iran is required to declare a facility 6 months prior to the introduction of fissile material. They did not introduce any into Foro for another 18 months after declaring it.

        In fact, El-Baradei inspected the facility after it was declared and stated it was nothing but a hole in the ground.

        Now, its a fact that the IAEA and Western intelligence agencies reported the existence of the facility and shamed the Iranian government into admitting its existence.

        No it is not Hostage. Iran declare it’s existence 4 days prior to Obama’s grandstanding. The claim that it was outed by Western Intelligence is false. How on earth would the Iranians know that the US was about to declare it unless they had a mole in the State Department or CIA?

        In fact, as Gareth Porter pointed out, Iran was shamed into reporting the existence of the facility was invented after the fact. During a State Department press conference, the spokesman was what prompted Iran to declare it. The spokesman said, “we don’t know”.

        Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this one Hostage.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 12, 2013, 6:34 pm

        I already gave you a link which explained the purpose of the safeguards regime is early detection of unauthorized diversions and research directed at proscribed military purposes, while accounting for all fissionable material and unauthorized weapons or explosives activities. It’s not a one time deal.

        I agree, but the IAEA is till limited by the terms of the safeguards agreement, which stipulate that they only have a righto to inspect declared nuclear facilities.

        The simple fact Hostage, is that he NPT is a voluntary agreement. Had is said the IAEA would have the authority to go anywhere it wanted, no one wold have signed up for it. The West, which of course, includes all the nuclear states, are now trying to use the NPT as a stick to beat Iran with, which was not how it was written.

        In any event, the Security Council resolutions were adopted on the basis of reports from the IAEA, which said that its verifications of Iranian declarations since 2002 had revealed concealment of a number of Iran’s nuclear activities, the nature of those activities and other issues that prevented it from providing the required assurances about Iran’s undeclared nuclear material and activities after more than three years.

        Sorry, but that’s more BS talk intended to force Iran into an impossible position. There is no evidence of any undeclared nuclear material, so as with Iraq, it amounts to demanding that Iran prove a negative.

        In fat, since 2005, the IAEA has repeatedly reported, with 100% certainty, the non diversion of declared nuclear material.

        It has always been clear that the Security Council would allow Iran to pursue enrichment once it halted enrichment and suspect activities long enough to put in place a safeguard regime designed to provide the necessary assurances.

        I disagree. The White House has flip flopped on a number of occasions as to where it stood in this matter. On some occasions, it has stated it would accept Iranian enrichment, on others, it stated it’s goal was zero enrichment.

        It is not clear to me whether the lifting of the sanctions was an automatic condition built into the resolution or would require another resolution passed by the UNSC – in which case, the US or France could veto it citing bogus “ongoing concerns” the way they did with Iraq.

        As for the UN Documents you linked to, it states that

        The Council affirmed that it would review Iran’s actions in light of that report and suspend implementation of measures, if and for so long as Iran suspended all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.

        That says nothing about the Security Council allowing Iran to pursue enrichment once it halted enrichment and suspect activities long enough to put in place a safeguard regime designed to provide the necessary assurances.

        The statement that Measures Will Be Lifted if Iran Suspends Suspect Activities; Report Due from Atomic Energy Agency on Compliance within 60 Days suggests to me that the sanctions would be lifted if Iran stops enrichment, not that they would be permitted to resume enrichment.

        I already gave you a link which explained that work on a railway tunnel in 2002 morphed onto an undisclosed underground facility with 300 gas centrifuges just a few years later and that El Baradei had agreed it was a flagrant violation of the safeguard agreement.

        That is not what happened Hostage. The centrifuges were not even introduced to the facility until after El Baradei inspected it.

        “It’s a hole in a mountain,” said ElBaradei
        http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5A13KW20091105?irpc=932

        “U.N. inspectors found “nothing to be worried about” in a first look at a previously secret uranium enrichment site in Iran last month, the International Atomic Energy chief said in remarks published Thursday.

        Notice the most important observation that:

        ” no centrifuges had been introduced into the facility.”

        So no, the problems with undisclosed and suspect activities didn’t just begin when Yukia Amano

        Actually it did, at last the so called suspect activities. These were part of an appendix that El Baradei dismissed as lacking any substance and credibility. It was Amano who decided to append them to the November 2011 IAEA Report and publish them.

        Even before the IAEA Report was released to the public, the allegations contained in that appendix began to fall apart.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 12, 2013, 10:13 pm

        “The objective of the safeguards procedures . . . is the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities to the manufacture of nuclear weapons or of other nuclear explosive devices or for purposes unknown, and deterrence of such diversion by the risk of early detection

        Which comes back to my point. The passage refers to nuclear material, of which there isn’t any at Parchin.

        The operative terms being the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities . The IAEA has repeatedly reported the non diversion of nuclear material and prioduced no evidence of undeclared nuclear material.

        Amano has thus adopted the sleazy argument that he cannot be certain there is no undeclared nuclear material, which one could argue is a position he can maintain indefinitely, regardless of how much access he is give.

        There are non-proscribed military uses of fissionable material that are not subject to the safeguard plan (Article 14), so long as during the period of non-application of safeguards the material is used only in a peaceful nuclear activity by the military and isn’t used in explosive devices (like the explosion chamber at Parchin).

        Amano’s predecessor, Bob Kelly has already debunked the allegation that the sol called explosive chamber has any application for nuclear research. Based on the specifications provided to the IAEA by it’s intelligence sources, the chamber is of insufficient capacity to carry out any such experiments and indeed, the chamber was revealed to have been identical to the design invented by a Russian expert in the production of nano diamonds.

        Furthermore, the IAEA is not even alleging that any fissionable material was used in that chamber.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 12, 2013, 10:19 pm

        So orchestrated outrage over the DNA comment aside, there have obviously been pathological liars on both sides of the negotiating table for years and one of the individuals responsible for much of the current distrust and deception was our new best friend, Rouhani.

        The allegation that Rouhani was being deceptive was debunked by British Diplomat, Peter Jenkins. The whole storm in a teacup stemmed from the specifics of what constituted “all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as defined by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]”.

        The E3 hoped that Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, would produce a definition of enrichment that would stop work at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Isfahan, which was due to start converting uranium ore (yellowcake) into uranium hexafluoride, the feed material for centrifuge enrichment, in the course of 2004.

        Instead, ElBaradei defined enrichment as the operation and/or testing of centrifuges; the installation of centrifuges; the introduction or use of material in any facility capable of isotopic separation; and the construction, testing or operation of any isotopic separation facility.

        In doing so, ElBaradei opened the way for Iran to complete, hot test and start up production at the UCF without breaching the Tehran agreement with the E3. Iran also continued to manufacture, assemble and test centrifuge machines — while honouring its commitment to suspend the activities specified by ElBaradei…

        As soon as the E3 could, they set about trying to renegotiate the Tehran agreement to close these loop-holes; but it was only in November 2004, in Paris, that they finally got Iranian agreement to extend the suspension to “all enrichment related activities, and specifically the manufacture and import of gas centrifuges and their components; the assembly, installation, testing or operation of gas centrifuges; and all tests or production of any uranium conversion installation”.
        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/netanyahus-deception-diplomat.html

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 12, 2013, 11:18 pm

        Sorry, but that’s more BS talk

        No it’s not. It means the Iranians agreed to establish their own verification system for the IAEA to use in conducting its audits and there is material recorded there with no known disposition that is no longer on hand. That had been the case for more than 3 years. It also means that Iran was engaged in undisclosed activity that was required to be reported under the terms of the treaty and the safeguard agreement. You can’t build an underground enrichment facility that goes unreported by accident. It is just B.S. to suggest otherwise.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 12, 2013, 11:44 pm

        You can’t build an underground enrichment facility that goes unreported by accident. It B.S. to suggest otherwise.

        Under the Safeguards Agreenent, you can build anything you like (be it above or underground) so long as you declare it’s existence 6 months prior to the introduction of nuclear material. Iran did not even install centrifuges into Forfo until 6 months after it was declared not any nuclear material for a further 12 months.

        There is nothing in their own verification system for the IAEA that says anything different.

        It also means that Iran was engaged in undisclosed activity that was required to be reported under the terms of the treaty and the safeguard agreement.

        That was over a decade ago and the IAEA reported that the matter had been resolved, and that the facility was under IAEA oversight. What’s more, the violation was largely technical.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 12:20 am

        That was over a decade ago and the IAEA reported that the matter had been resolved, and that the facility was under IAEA oversight. What’s more, the violation was largely technical.

        One more time. I gave you links to the Security Council resolutions and IAEA reports which said that the Iranian verification system could not be used by the IAEA to confirm the disposition of unreported material for more than three years.

        If Iran can build unreported underground facilities for enrichment, while negotiating in good faith to suspend all such activities so the IAEA can verify the actual situation regarding unreported activities, then Netanyahu can conduct good faith negotiations on the final status of the settlements while building more of them. Except most reasonable people still view that as evidence of an illicit motive, mens rhea, deception, and concealment.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 12:45 am

        Sorry, but there is no evidence that Iran is refusing to undertake or accept the safeguards required by the IAEA to pursue peaceful research and production in accordance with Article III(1)-(4) of the treaty.

        Shingo the agreement Iran signed allows it to appeal the disputed IAEA reports made to the Security Council to the IAEA Board of Governors or to demand arbitration by a panel arraigned by the IAEA and the President of the ICJ. The UN Charter it signed says it will accept the decision of the Security Council on any situation the Council deems to be a threat to international peace and security. Article 36 of the Charter also stipulates that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice. But the respective organs still report that Iran is in violation of both those agreements and it claims it has an unqualified or inalienable right to engage in enrichment, but has not referred this dispute to the ICJ for resolution. You can argue till the cows come home that the IAEA or Security Council are acting ultra vires, but that doesn’t mean anything, unless the question is decided that way by the ICJ.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 1:29 am

        The whole storm in a teacup stemmed from the specifics of what constituted “all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as defined by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]”.

        No it didn’t. El Baredi and the Board of Governors reported that deception and concealment of activities violated the agreement. http://www.nti.org/facilities/165/

        It would have meant a lot more if El Baredi agreed with Peter Jenkins in the final analysis and they had debunked the report while serving in an official capacity before they retired. But that didn’t happen:

        I was Britain’s representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – and I disbelieved the reassuring words of my Iranian interlocutors about their commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). At the time, I was all for denying Iran any capacity relevant to making nuclear weapons. Now, however, I see things differently.

        — The deal the West could strike with Iran: Tehran should be allowed to enrich uranium – but with the toughest safeguards. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9033566/The-deal-the-West-could-strike-with-Iran.html

        So he still thinks the right to enrich is subject to imposed conditions. The IAEA remains the competent UN agency that defines the terms of necessary safeguard agreements in line with the object and purpose of the Non-Proliferation Treaty – which are primarily about verifying the reporting systems used to monitor the capacity to make nuclear weapons and the disposition of materials that are produced. You imply that almost any retired official who’s out of the loop can dispose of the determinations made by the current Board of Governors and inspectors regarding judgments on concealment and unreliable Iranian verification and accounting systems. Obviously, if the IAEA certifies Iran’s program, no one will need permission to lift the UN sanctions.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 1:46 am

        Which comes back to my point. The passage refers to nuclear material, of which there isn’t any at Parchin.

        No the agreement also covers concealment of related activities. The fact that Iran kept facilities and their long range planning and construction secret violated the agreement, whether or not they were able to place it into operation before El Baradi was made aware of its existence and got inspectors to look it over. It was not just a harmless hole in the mountain, it will be able to produce several warheads per year and it was kept secret.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 3:08 am

        I gave you links to the Security Council resolutions and IAEA reports which said that the Iranian verification system could not be used by the IAEA to confirm the disposition of unreported material for more than three years.

        What makes you think they were relying on the Iranian verification system? Once the material is all accounted for, and it was by the IAEA, you cannot unaccount for it three years later.

        If Iran can build unreported underground facilities for enrichment

        Again I will remind you they DID NOT DO, seeing as they reported it’s existence well within the time frame stipulated by the Nuclear Safeguards Agreement.

        Now I am well aware that El Baradei’s insists that Iran were obliged to declare the facility prior to construction, but that was only under the terms of the Paris agreement and Iran has insisted that they were only committing to it temporarily. They withdrew from that agreement when the Paris Agreement collapsed, but the IAEA maintained that Iran remain bound by it.

        while negotiating in good faith to suspend all such activities so the IAEA can verify the actual situation regarding unreported activitie

        Which again did NOT happen. As Peter Jenkins points out in his article, the Iranians observed the IAEA definition of suspension (as of October 2003) to the letter and again observed the new definition under the insistence of the E3, so there was no deception or concealment on Iran’s part.

        Furthermore, the Paris Agreement between the E3 and Iran terminated in 2006, and the link you provided to http://www.nti.org/ states that the Fordo facility didn’t begin construction till 2006/2007, so there was no evidence of duplicity on Iran’s part.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 3:28 am

        El Baredi and the Board of Governors reported that deception and concealment of activities violated the agreement.

        Actually it was leaders from 3 countries that made that argument, not El Baredi. He was much more careful with his statement:

        “Iran should have informed the IAEA the day they had decided to construct the facility,” based on the provisions of Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.

        The provisions of Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement was only valid during the negotiations with the E3, which collapsed by 2005.

        Your article goes on to explain that the Nuclear Safeguard Agreement only requires signatories to declare new facilities 180 days before the facility is scheduled to receive nuclear material. Fordo did not receive nuclear material for another 18 months.

        In addition, your link also points out that Iran declared in 21 September 2009 and that Obama only acknowledged it’s existence on 25 September 2009 – 4 days later.

        Again, your link states that:

        Iran countered that it had ceased implementation of the arrangement in protest of UN sanctions in March 2007

        And quite frankly, the article only states that “Iran’s obligations under Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement remain under dispute with the IAEA.”

        So he still thinks the right to enrich is subject to imposed conditions.

        So does Iran. In fact, Iran said from 2001 under the Grand Bargain, that they wanted to internationalize their nuclear industry and open it to tenders from foreign agencies. Their only condition was that their right o enrich be recognized and that all activity take place on Iranian soil.

        You imply that almost any retired official who’s out of the loop can dispose of the determinations made by the current Board of Governors and inspectors regarding judgments on concealment and unreliable Iranian verification and accounting systems.

        Actually that’s not what I am saying, but I would agree with it. Why not? Shouldn’t the same set of rules apply for all states?

        In any case, Jenkins was not making determinations as to what the current Board of Governors should be doing. He was correcting a false allegation against Rouhani based on his involvement at the time it was said to have occurred.

        Obviously, if the IAEA certifies Iran’s program, no one will need permission to lift the UN sanctions.

        Furthermore, there is no evidence that Iran’s Iranian verification and accounting systems have been relaible or that they have concealed anything. Accordinf to the IAEA, their main complaints about Iran’s nuclear program relates to activities with possible military dimensions.

        Obviously, if the IAEA certifies Iran’s program, no one will need permission to lift the UN sanctions.

        One would hope so but the US had threatened to block any resolutions declaring Iraq in compliance even when Rolf Ekeus was about to report that finding.

        In another post, you stated that 9 UNSC memebers would have to vote to lift the sanctions and that they would still be subject to a possible veto.

        Why have you changed your position?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 3:40 am

        No the agreement also covers concealment of related activities

        That was the revised agreement made in 2004. And related activities is a pretty absurd term as we saw with respect to Iraq’s WMD’s when “WMD related activities” was stretched so wide as to included the re-employment of nuclear scientists into other non related fields of work.

        The fact that Iran kept facilities and their long range planning and construction secret violated the agreement

        That is a matter fo dispute, given that the IAEA reject Iran’s right to withdraw from what Iran considered a temporary arrangement.

        It was not just a harmless hole in the mountain, it will be able to produce several warheads per year and it was kept secret.

        No it won’t because the facility is under 24/7 IAEA oversight.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 3:55 am

        What makes you think they were relying on the Iranian verification system? Once the material is all accounted for, and it was by the IAEA, you cannot unaccount for it three years later.

        So you didn’t bother to read the requirement for Iran to establish its own verification data system for IAEA use in the safeguard agreement or the IAEA reports cited in the Chapter 7 resolutions – even after I supplied the links. Undocumented material means it is not where it is supposed to be stored and its ultimate disposition is unknown and can’t be verified.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        Tuyzentfloot
        November 13, 2013, 4:07 am

        You can’t build an underground enrichment facility that goes unreported by accident. It is just B.S. to suggest otherwise.

        As I understood it the Iranians were required to declare new facilities 6 months before fissile material was to be moved in, and the existence of facility was disclosed before that. Their mistake was that they should have been more forthcoming at that stage. Under Ahmedinejad they often stuck to a less than forthcoming approach and I tend to agree with them. The idea that there’s some kind of symmetry of deceit is misplaced. (Edit: i see I’m only repeating things here that have been said, and I havent’ got the time to delve into this. So it can be disregarded..)

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 4:10 am

        So you didn’t bother to read the requirement for Iran to establish its own verification data system for IAEA use in the safeguard agreement or the IAEA reports cited in the Chapter 7 resolutions – even after I supplied the links.

        Yes I did bother to read it Hostage – but I did not read the part that says the IAEA relies entirely on Iran’s data to report it’s findings. How is it that the IAEA has been able to verify the non diversion of declared nuclear material for at least 6 years running?

        After all, if the IAEA were to rely entirely on Iran’s reporting, why would they bother with inspections or cameras overseeing the facilities 24/7?

        Undocumented material means it is not where it is supposed to be stored and its ultimate disposition is unknown and can’t be verified.

        The term is undeclared, and as I said, the IAEA has no evidence that any exists.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 4:17 am

        Not only that Tuyzentfloot ,

        But what’s not been mentioned in this discussion is the violation of the NPT by the UNSC members themselves, who are obliged to assist non nuclear states with developing their nuclear program. Instead, the US and it’s allies have not only failed to do so, but blocked all avenues for Iran to develop it’s program. And this activity pre-dates any nuclear activity by Iran.

        Of course, the UNSC or ICJ won’t be reporting that because as with everything, this all comes down to power and who carries the biggest stick.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 4:31 am

        The provisions of Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement was only valid during the negotiations with the E3, which collapsed by 2005.

        So what is your point? He said Iran violated provisions that were a subsidiary portion of its Safeguard Agreement during the period that it was in force. That’s a violation of Article III of the NPT, and the Security Council resolutions.

        Furthermore, there is no evidence

        The Security Council resolutions were adopted on the basis of these IAEA reports, which said that its verifications of Iranian declarations since 2002 had revealed concealment of a number of Iran’s nuclear activities. The nature of those activities and other issues had prevented it from providing the required assurances about Iran’s undeclared nuclear material and activities after more than three years.
        * link to un.org
        * link to iaea.org
        * link to iaea.org
        * link to iaea.org

        Here is an extract from the GOV2006-14 (the first IAEA link above) a Board of Governors resolution on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguard Agreement:

        (d) Commending the Director General and the Secretariat for their professional and impartial efforts to implement the Safeguards Agreement in Iran, to resolve outstanding safeguards issues in Iran and to verify the implementation by Iran of the suspension,
        (e) Recalling the Director General’s description of this as a special verification case,
        (f) Recalling that in reports referred to above, the Director General noted that after nearly three years of intensive verification activity, the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme or to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,
        (g) Recalling Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement and the absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes resulting from the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities, the nature of those activities and other issues arising from the Agency’s verification
        of declarations made by Iran since September 2002,

        Dr. Mohamed El Baradei was Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from December 1997 until November 2009. So he was the Director General making those allegations about the history of concealment and violations of the Safeguard Agreement, required under Article III of the NPT.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 4:46 am

        As I understood it the Iranians were required to declare new facilities 6 months before fissile material was to be moved in, and the existence of facility was disclosed before that.

        No, I provided a link in which the Director General of the IAEA explained that Iran should have informed the IAEA the day they had decided to construct the facility, based on the provisions of Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. In other words it was a violation of the safeguard agreement required by Article III of the NPT.

        http://www.nti.org/facilities/165/

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 4:54 am

        The UN Charter it signed says it will accept the decision of the Security Council on any situation the Council deems to be a threat to international peace and security.

        You know I am your biggest fan Hostage, but at the end of the day, we’ve just got to agree to call it like it is. All 16 US intelligence agencies have reported every year since 2007, that Iran is not developing nukes or that they have any desire to produce them. Even the Israeli intelligence agencies agree.

        So it’s safe to conclude with a high degree of certainty that the Security Council don’t seriously regard Iran as a threat to international peace and security. What’s more, given that the IAEA relies entirely on the intelligence provided by member states, it is also unlikely that they know something about Iran’s nuclear program that the UNSC members do not.

        Now I would be the first to agree that Iran have not played the game as well as they should, though as I explained earlier, I doubt that the US, France and Britain were ever interested in negotiating in good faith or resolving this dispute. I can also understand why Iran would be so reticent to go through the motions and jump through hoops – bearing all the liabilities of the NPT while enjoying none of the benefits – just to avoid being bombed or sanctioned.

        I can’t speak for Iran as to why they haven’t taken their case to the ICJ, but like I said earlier, it would only moral victory. There is nothing the ICJ can do to curb the actions of the UNSC members.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 5:07 am

        No, I provided a link in which the Director General of the IAEA explained that Iran should have informed the IAEA the day they had decided to construct the facility, based on the provisions of Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. In other words it was a violation of the safeguard agreement required by Article III of the NPT.

        And Iran made it clear from the beginning, that their acceptance of these Subsidiary Arrangements was only temporary; to ensure that confidence was created between the parties and to give time to the E3 to come up with a set of proposals to address Iran’s security and economic concerns.

        El Baradei was fully aware of this and accepted Iran’s terms.

        The E3 then stonewalled and did nothing. While refusing to participate in negotiations, the Bush Administration insisted on the right to kill any deal they did not find acceptable.

        Iran gave the E3 a 6 months extension after they missed the first deadline. When they missed the second, Iran knew they were being played and pulled out of the deal.

        At that point, El Baradei then insisted that the Iranians were not allowed to do so unilaterally, in spite of agreeing to Iran’s original terms.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 5:23 am

        He said Iran violated provisions that were a subsidiary portion of its Safeguard Agreement during the period that it was in force.

        That’s because he is of the opinion that the subsidiary portion of its Safeguard Agreement was permanent. Iran had made it clear before they entered into the agreement that their implementation of the Subsidiary Agreement was temporary.

        El Baradei accepted Iran’s stipulation.

        The Subsidiary Agreement was intended as a confidence building measure while the E3 produced proposals to address Iran’s security and economic concerns. They missed the first deadline, so Iran gave them a 6 month extension. When they missed the second, Iran lost patience and terminated the agreement.

        At that point, El Baradei and the IAEA insisted that Iran did not have the right to do so unilaterally, so they continued to base their reports on that basis.

        Here is an extract from the GOV2006-14 (the first IAEA link above) a Board of Governors resolution on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguard Agreement:

        I would invite you to read the end of that report and the statement by Javad Zari and his rebuttals contained therein. They are consistent with Jenkins account and support the claim that the E3 rushed this matter to the UNSC before the IAEA could conclude it’s investigations. Namely that:

        The sponsors had ignored, however, the repeated acknowledgement by the IAEA Director General that the process of drawing such a conclusion was a time-consuming process. They had also ignored the addendum to the 2005 IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report, released in June 2006, which indicated that 45 other countries were in the same category as Iran, including 14 European and several members of the Council.

        Also it should not be ignored that the Bush Administration insisted on the right to veto any deal even while it refused to participate in negotiations. This is the same Bush Administration that rejected Iran’s grand bargain of 2002.

        For almost three years, Iran had tried to sustain or even resuscitate negotiations with the EU-3. Iran had offered far-reaching proposals to usher in a new era of cooperation, in August 2004, in January, March, April, July and September 2005, and in January, February and March 2006.

        Throughout that period, Iran had adopted extensive and extremely costly confidence-building measures, including suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years, to ensure the success of negotiations, he said. All along, it had been the persistence of some to draw arbitrary red lines and deadlines that had closed the door to any compromise. That tendency had single-handedly blocked success and, in most cases, killed proposals in their infancy. That had been Washington’s persistent strategy ever since Iran and the EU-3 had started their negotiations in October 2003. “Only the tactics have changed”, he said.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 5:29 am

        Yes I did bother to read it Hostage – but I did not read the part that says the IAEA relies entirely on Iran’s data to report it’s findings.

        I figured you hadn’t. Article 4(b) of the agreement doesn’t allow for continuous IAEA monitoring and requires the IAEA to avoid undue interference in Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities, and in particular in the operation of facilities. Article 8 provides that Iran doesn’t have to transmit the required information from its national system to the IAEA, so long as it is kept on hand at each facility. The preamble explains the exclusive purpose of the safeguard system:

        “Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

        Article 1
        The Government of Iran undertakes, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article III of the Treaty, to accept safeguards, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within its territory, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
        APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS
        Article 2
        The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of Iran, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its
        control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

        NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MATERIALS CONTROL
        Article 7
        (a) The Government of Iran shall establish and maintain a system of accounting for and control of all nuclear material subject to safeguards under this Agreement.
        (b) The Agency shall apply safeguards in such a manner as to enable it to verify, in ascertaining that there has been no diversion of nuclear material from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, findings of Iran’s system. The Agency’s verification shall include, inter alia, independent measurements and observations conducted by the Agency in accordance with the procedures specified in Part II of this Agreement. The Agency, in its verification, shall take due account of the technical effectiveness of Iran’s system.

        PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO THE AGENCY
        Article 8
        (a) In order to ensure the effective implementation of safeguards under this Agreement, the Government of Iran shall, in accordance with the provisions set out in Part II of this Agreement, provide the Agency with information concerning nuclear material subject to safeguards under this Agreement and the features of facilities relevant to safeguarding such material.
        (b) (i) The Agency shall require only the minimum amount of information and data consistent with carrying out its responsibilities under this Agreement.
        (ii) Information pertaining to facilities shall be the minimum necessary for safe-guarding nuclear material subject to safeguards under this Agreement.
        (c) If the Government of Iran so requests, the Agency shall be prepared to examine on premises of Iran design information which the Government of Iran regards as being of particular sensitivity. Such information need not be physically transmitted to the Agency provided that it remains readily available for further examination by the Agency on premises of Iran.

        So the Iranian national system is the sole source of the comprehensive records and plans. The IAEA only conducts independent measurements and observations to verify the effectiveness of the information in that system whose exclusive purpose is to verify that no material is diverted for use in nuclear devices or nuclear explosives. For more than three years the Agency couldn’t verify that nuclear material had not been diverted – and that is a violation of the treaty.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 5:39 am

        I figured you hadn’t. Article 4(b) of the agreement doesn’t allow for continuous IAEA monitoring and requires the IAEA to avoid undue interference in Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities, and in particular in the operation of facilities

        That’s hilarious given that undue interference in Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities is exactly what the IAEA and UNSC are insisting on.

        In any case, how can the IAEA possibly verify that fissile material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices if they rely entirely on Iran to report it? That is akin to allowing Al Capone to do his own tax return.

        For more than three years the Agency couldn’t verify that nuclear material had not been diverted – and that is a violation of the treaty.

        You are referring to pre 2003 I take it? In any case, the Agency has been able to verify that nuclear material had not been diverted ever since 2006, and between 2003 and 2006 no enrichment had taken place, so what’s the point of referring the UNSC?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 5:48 am

        Incidentally Hostage,

        While reading through the safeguards agreement, I spotted examples of violations on the part of other remember states.

        IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFEGUARDS

        Article 4

        The safeguards provided for in this Agreement shall be implemented in a manner designed:

        (a) To avoid hampering the economic and technological development of Iran or international
        co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including international exchange of
        nuclear material;

        (b) To avoid undue interference in Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities, and in particular in the
        operation of facilities; and

        (c) To be consistent with prudent management practices required for the economic and safe
        conduct of nuclear activities.

        The US and Israel have violated every one of these.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 5:50 am

        The UNSC have said that Iran should suspend it’s enrichment for peaceful use of nuclear energy until it complies with it’s commitments under the IAEA, but that is a separate matter, since the UNSC have never made a determination that Iran could not enrich for peaceful purposes under the NPT with all the safeguards set out by the IAEA in place.

        Because that has never happened yet and Article III of the NPT itself provides that the safeguard agreements have to be negotiated and concluded in accordance with the terms of the IAEA Statute which opens a different can of worms, conditions, and criteria for peaceful nuclear development.

        But all of the measures adopted by the Security Council are purely provisional in nature and intended to be without prejudice to the rights or claims of the parties under the terms of the Charter. Once the special inspection by IAEA verifies Iran is complying with the Chapter 7 resolutions, the UN sanctions and provisional measures will be lifted.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 6:00 am

        The term is undeclared, and as I said, the IAEA has no evidence that any exists.

        The reports explain that the Agency has been unable to use Iran’s national system, as required by the terms of the treaty, to verify that no material has been diverted for prohibited uses in weapons or explosives. That is the exclusive purpose of the national system, and it was inadequate. So, that fact is evidence of a violation of the international treaty obligation.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 6:06 am

        No the agreement also covers concealment of related activities . . . That was the revised agreement made in 2004. And related activities

        No Article III of the NPT requires the safeguard agreements to be negotiated in accordance with the IAEA Statute. It allows the Agency to establish standards that govern facilities and activities used in peaceful nuclear development. It has always applied conditions to nuclear activities and facilities capable of producing material that can be diverted for use in weapons. BTW the link to the paper on IAEA glossary explained all of that.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 6:16 am

        The reports explain that the Agency has been unable to use Iran’s national system, as required by the terms of the treaty, to verify that no material has been diverted for prohibited uses in weapons or explosives.

        Funny. That hasn’t stopped the IAEA reporting every year since 2006, with 100% certainty, that Iran is not diverting declared nuclear material

        That is the exclusive purpose of the national system, and it was inadequate

        So Iran’s lousy accounting is a violation. And yet the Pentagon could not account for 2.6 trillion missing in 2001.

        You’ve got to laugh.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 6:20 am

        But all of the measures adopted by the Security Council are purely provisional in nature and intended to be without prejudice to the rights or claims of the parties under the terms of the Charter.

        Well, appears they are not without prejudice to the rights or claims of the Iran under the terms of the Charter.

        Once the special inspection by IAEA verifies Iran is complying with the Chapter 7 resolutions, the UN sanctions and provisional measures will be lifted.

        Again, there is no evidence I have seen to support that. You yourself stated that 9 members of the UNSC would have to agree to vote on the matter of lifting the UN sanctions and even then, there is nothing to stop any permanent member vetoing it.

        I suspect that if there was an automatic trigger to lift sanctions based on IAEA verifying Iran is complying with the Chapter 7 resolutions, Iran would comply. Indeed, the US has refused to agree to lift sanctions (unilateral) in negotiations with Iran.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 6:25 am

        But what’s not been mentioned in this discussion is the violation of the NPT by the UNSC members themselves, who are obliged to assist non nuclear states with developing their nuclear program.

        No, the US had a deal to sell reactors, technology, and share benefits of research with the Shah of Iran, but wouldn’t help or equip Iran to do enrichment. http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb268/

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 6:30 am

        No, the US had a deal to sell reactors, technology, and share benefits of research with the Shah of Iran, but wouldn’t help or equip Iran to do enrichment.

        No there is more to it than that.

        They have also blocked other states supplying Iran with such equipment, including xray equipment for medical uses.

        Clinton blocked the supply of a light water reactor to Iran from China.

        The whole reason Iran decided to enrich to 20% was because the US blocked the supply of fuel for Iran’s research reactor in 2011.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 6:44 am

        You know I am your biggest fan Hostage, but at the end of the day, we’ve just got to agree to call it like it is. All 16 US intelligence agencies have reported every year since 2007, that Iran is not developing nukes or that they have any desire to produce them.

        I agree, but they all report that Iran is deliberately violating the applicable UN Security Council resolutions, and the terms of the NPT and IAEA Statute regarding the safeguard agreements. Even if they have a right to enrichment, most other countries still agree they still have to comply with all the other terms and conditions. I think that most states think that enough is enough at this point and that threats to bomb them or destroy their economy are illegal and disproportionate. It’s outrageous that Israel is working to prevent a peaceful settlement.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 7:01 am

        That’s because he is of the opinion that the subsidiary portion of its Safeguard Agreement was permanent.

        That is because the NPT says the Safeguard Agreements must be negotiated and concluded in accordance with IAEA Statute and it has the discretion to establish the inspection system criteria:

        As set forth in Article III.1 of the NPT, a primary purpose of IAEA’s safeguards
        system is “to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” (See Appendix, Non-Proliferation Treaty).
        S
        ince Article III.1 of the NPT stipulates that IAEA safeguards shall be followed, any violation of IAEA safeguards is a violation of Article III of the NPT, and therefore a violation of the treaty. Thus, when observers point out that the IAEA has no mandate to verify compliance with the NPT, but only compliance with IAEA safeguards agreements, this is at best misleading since failure to comply with an applicable IAEA safeguards
        agreement is a violation of the NPT.

        As set forth in the IAEA’s enabling statute, IAEA safeguards are “designed to ensure that special fissionable and other materials, services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the Agency or at its request or under its supervision or control are not used in such a way as to further any military purpose, . . .” (See Appendix, IAEA’s Enabling Statute).

        The IAEA’s enabling statute gives the IAEA certain rights, among them is the right to establish an inspection system that is designed to ensure that the purpose of safeguards is met. IAEA document INFCIRC/153, which details the safeguards obligations of States party to the NPT, provides a technical definition of the object of IAEA safeguards, namely, “the objective of safeguards is the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful activities to the manufacture of nuclear weapons or of other explosive devices or for purposes unknown, and deterrence of such diversion by the risk of early detection.”

        http://www.npolicy.org/article_file/Adequacy_of_IAEAs_Safeguards_for_Achieving_Timely_Detection-PAPER.pdf

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 7:10 am

        That’s hilarious given that undue interference in Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities is exactly what the IAEA and UNSC are insisting on.

        Not really. They are only asking Iran to suspend enrichment until the IAEA can verify that it has + ensure that it has a reliable national reporting and record keeping system in place when it resumes. There are other parties who want to keep those provisional UN sanctions in place permanently. But there is no international support for that sort of thing or any permanent loss of Iranian rights.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 7:20 am

        Thus, when observers point out that the IAEA has no mandate to verify compliance with the NPT, but only compliance with IAEA safeguards agreements, this is at best misleading since failure to comply with an applicable IAEA safeguards agreement is a violation of the NPT.

        That is also debatable. A new study by the Congressional Research Service of the U.S. Congress concluded that:

        Whether Iran has violated the NPT is unclear. The treaty does not contain a mechanism for determining that a state-party has violated its obligations. Moreover, there does not appear to be a formal procedure for determining such violations. [..]

        The U.N. Security Council has never declared Iran to be in violation of the NPT; neither the council nor the U.N. General Assembly has a responsibility to adjudicate treaty violations.
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 7:24 am

        While reading through the safeguards agreement, I spotted examples of violations on the part of other remember states.

        This is only the agreement between the IAEA and Iran. The US and Israel aren’t parties.

        What you are discussing is a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter which requires members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state and from intervening in matters like these IAEA safeguards, which are essentially a matter within the domestic jurisdiction of another State.

        That legal obligation is incorporated by reference in the last clause of the preamble of the NPT itself, i.e. Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,

        Have agreed as follows:

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 8:11 am

        Funny. That hasn’t stopped the IAEA reporting every year since 2006, with 100% certainty, that Iran is not diverting declared nuclear material

        Fine, but the special inspection requirement mentioned in the 2006 report I cited, regarding compliance with the provisional measures adopted by the Security Council, are still a definite no-show.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 13, 2013, 8:22 am

        Well, appears they are not without prejudice to the rights or claims of the Iran under the terms of the Charter.

        The resolution simply required Iran to stop enrichment until it can be verified that it is complying with the safeguard agreement and the interim provisional measures prescribed by the Security Council. Once again, there is no consensus of opinion which holds that states have an unqualified right to pursue nuclear programs while they are out of compliance with the terms their safeguard plans or their actions are a threat to international peace and security in the opinion of the members of the Security Council.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 7:34 pm

        Fine, but the special inspection requirement mentioned in the 2006 report I cited, regarding compliance with the provisional measures adopted by the Security Council, are still a definite no-show.

        With reagard to the UNSC Resolution, perhaps, but based on the statements by China in the meeting you cited, it appears that the opinion on this is not uniform between all permanent UNSC members.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 13, 2013, 7:38 pm

        The resolution simply required Iran to stop enrichment until it can be verified that it is complying with the safeguard agreement and the interim provisional measures prescribed by the Security Council.

        That might be the case, but it is my understanding that the resolution cannot be reversed or terminated without a new UNSC resolution and that there is nothing stopping any of the permanent members vetoing without even having to give a reason.

        Once again, there is no consensus of opinion which holds that states have an unqualified right to pursue nuclear programs while they are out of compliance with the terms their safeguard plans or their actions are a threat to international peace and security in the opinion of the members of the Security Council.

        The fact that the opinion of the members of the Security Council is clearly political as opposed to objective and factual. The US government’s opinion does not correspond with the opinion of it’s own intelligence agencies, and as I have pointed out, the IAEA is not privy to intelligence or data not already available to those agencies.

        And if you will indulge me Hostage, what makes this doubly hard to swallow is the fact that Iran is being punished/disadvantaged for entering into a treaty, which would have served none of their interests had they any intention of producing nuclear weapons.

        So while the UNSC is passing punitive resolutions against Iran based on IAEA reports, they will not ever have to consider the fact that Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nukes, which are clearly a threat to international peace and security.

  14. James Canning
    James Canning
    November 11, 2013, 4:45 pm

    Fabius is quite right that Israel needs to help resolve Israel/Palestine problem. Getting out of WB would of course help a very great deal.

  15. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    November 11, 2013, 9:49 pm

    “many of them former leftists who preached the spread of democracy and dreamed of remaking the Middle East, if necessary, through war.”

    I am confused. Former leftists? How does that happen?

Leave a Reply