Monday, November 29, 2004

Iran nuclear resolution adopted (IAEA)

The International Atomic Energy Administration has adopted a resolution on how they will proceed in regards to Iran.

Iran nuclear resolution adopted

Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 2:08 PM EST (1908 GMT) CNN.COM

This follows final negotiations on Sunday

Iran confirms 'final' uranium deal

From CNN Correspondent Kasra Naji
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 12:33 PM EST (1733 GMT)

The IAEA web site is
With the resolution (pdf) and a

full report


Friday, November 26, 2004

Iran Refuses to Stop Using Uranium Enrichment Equipment

Iran Refuses to Stop Using Uranium Enrichment Equipment

By ELAINE SCIOLINO Published: November 25, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

In an on-again-off-again deal, the Iranians are now refusing to change their ways.

The Iranian refusal threatened to scuttle a nuclear agreement that Iran reached 10 days ago with France, Britain and Germany to freeze all of Iran's uranium enrichments activities, European officials said. It also gave new ammunition to the Bush administration, which contends that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program and cannot be trusted.

The impasse coincided with the opening of crucial meetings to review Iran's nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency here, the United Nations nuclear monitoring body that has the authority to refer Iran to the United Nations for possible censure or sanctions.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency chief, said in a speech today that Iran has so far failed to meet its pledge to freeze uranium enrichment in full because of its insistence on operating 20 centrifuges for research.

Or, are they refusing?

Iran vows to honor nuclear pledge

Friday, November 26, 2004 Posted: 7:40 AM EST (1240 GMT) CNN.COM
In this report CNN describes the same situation as a request for an "exemption".

Before the IAEA meeting began on Thursday, ElBaradei said that Iran's 18-year concealment of its enrichment programme had undermined international confidence in the Islamic state.

"A confidence deficit has been created, and confidence needs to be restored. Iran's active cooperation and full transparency is therefore indispensable," he said.

Okay, whew, they backed down on requesting the exemption anyway.

Iran Uranium Dispute Resolved, Diplomats Report

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: November 26, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that under the compromise, Iran would give up its insistence that 20 centrifuges be exempted from a total freeze of all uranium enrichment activities.

But instead of accepting seals from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the equipment, the centrifuges would be monitored for inactivity by IAEA cameras, said the diplomat, who is familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier and who spoke on condition of anonymity.


C.I.A. Says Pakistanis Gave Iran Nuclear Aid

Yup, our dear "allies", the Pakistani's, have been busy proliferating nuclear technology. Tell me again why we invaded Iraq and not Pakistan?

C.I.A. Says Pakistanis Gave Iran Nuclear Aid

By DOUGLAS JEHL Published: November 24, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

A new report from the Central Intelligence Agency says the arms trafficking network led by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan provided Iran's nuclear program with "significant assistance," including the designs for "advanced and efficient" weapons components.

The unclassified version of the report, posted Tuesday on the agency's Web site,, does not say explicitly whether Mr. Khan's network sold Iran complete plans for building a warhead, as the network is known to have done for Libya and perhaps North Korea. But it suggests that American intelligence agencies now believe that the bomb-making designs provided by the network to Iran in the 1990's were more significant than the United States government has previously disclosed.

In a recent closed-door speech to a private group, George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, described Mr. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, as being "at least as dangerous as Osama bin Laden" because of his role in providing nuclear technology to other countries. A tape recording of the speech was obtained by The New York Times.

Going to, we find the report here:

Attachment A:
Unclassified Report to Congress
on the Acquisition of Technology
Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munitions,

1 July Through 31 December 2003


Rethinking the nuclear option - pebble bed reactors for South America

Rethinking the nuclear option: Discusses a new nuclear plant, using "Pebble Bed" technology, being designed and readied to be installed in South Africa. The idea is much the same as the "portable" nuclear plants discussed in the next story.


Thursday, November 18, 2004

More on revelations of Irans nuclear program

Exiles Add to Claims on Iran Nuclear Arms

By ELAINE SCIOLINO, Published: November 18, 2004 (NY Times)

This is the announcement that was promised yesterday. Despite my skepticism yesterday, this group was responsible for the initial unveiling of the story that Iran is enriching Uranium to make bomb-grade material. That gives them some credibility, no matter how "convenient" it is for the neocon war plans.

This is the group

The claims, made in separate news conferences in Paris and Vienna by a group known as the National Council of Resistance, the political front for the People's Mujahedeen, could not be independently verified, and independent nuclear experts were divided about whether they could be true.

These new charges come two days after the agreement was reached, and

The charges also come eight days before the 35-country ruling board of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog, opens meetings in Vienna to decide whether Iran has curbed its nuclear activities or should be referred to the Security Council for censure.

The timing couldn't have been more dramatic, huh?

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonpartisan arms control group in Washington, said, "The timing of these revelations raises suspicions that the group is attempting to derail Iran's deal with the Europeans, particularly since there is no evidence to back up any of these claims."

Yup, couldn't have said it better myself.

This is troubling, but probably very true

The nuclear agency has long suspected that Iran, like Libya, received bomb blueprints from the secretive network set up by Abdul Qadeer Khan, known in Pakistan as the father of the country's nuclear bomb. Among the Mujahedeen's charges on Wednesday was that the Iranian blueprints came from the Khan network.

In September, the agency revealed that as early as 1995, Pakistan was providing Tehran with the designs for advanced centrifuges capable of making bomb-grade nuclear fuel. The Iranians have never acknowledged that the source was Pakistan.

I.A.E.A. inspectors were able to nail down the connection between Iran and Pakistan because of similar centrifuge packaging material they found in Libya and Iran.

It was revealed last year that Pakistan was actively selling their nuclear technology, and that the head of their nuclear program (named above) was in charge of the sales. Now .. consider the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. Among them was this dubious claim of nuclear proliferation in Iraq, which has since been proved false. At the same time we are treating Pakistan as a valued ally. At the same time it is Pakistan that is the worst offender you could possibly imagine in nuclear proliferation, namely they were involved in selling nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and probably North Korea.

Why, then are we treating Pakistan as an ally?

Not that I know ... but let me offer a few clues

  1. Pakistan is on the oil pipeline route: This is the oil pipeline that Michael Moore talks of in
    Fahrenheit 9/11. If you haven't been following the news, there's
    been a bunch of U.S. activity north of Afghanistan that is conveniently along the route of the proposed pipeline. The pipeline would go from the Caspian Sea, across the north side of Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, and thence to the sea. It must avoid Iran for political reasons.
  2. Pakistan was the staging ground for the U.S. previous "work" in Afghanistan, and needed to be a staging ground for the current work there: In the 1980's the U.S. was waging a proxy war against the USSR to oust them from Afghanistan. The only foothold we had then was Pakistan, and we used Pakistan as an intermediary point to give weapons and training to, er, Osama bin Laden's troops.
  3. The U.S. needed in strategic terms to encircle Iran as much as possible: Ever since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1977, the U.S. and Iran have been enemies. The U.S. administration under Reagan supplied weapons and training to Iraq to help Iraq contain Iran, Iraq at the time being led by Saddam Hussein (yes, in the 80's, the U.S. was feeding the guy we now label a devil).
External Media


Wednesday, November 17, 2004

U.S. and 13 Other States Agree on Push to Gather Methane Gas

This is an interesting move to reduce dependance on oil.

U.S. and 13 Other States Agree on Push to Gather Methane Gas

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY Published: November 17, 2004 (NY Times)

Methane is one of the constituent parts of natural gas, and is a naturally occuring gas that leaks into the atmosphere from numerous sources such as landfills and sewage treatment. It can easily be used as a fuel to be used in driving machines or creating electricity. It is available everywhere, all around the world since it is a simple byproduct of normal biological processes.

An important thing is that it is not deriving from fossil fuels. When we burn a fossil fuel, we are digging up carbon from millions of years in the past and releasing that carbon into the ecosphere. But methane comes from carbon that was already present in the ecosphere, and does not act to increase the amoung of carbon in the ecosphere. Hence, use of methane and other non-fossil fuels is a good step towards rehabilitating the world climate and ecology.

The United States is underwriting some of the costs of the nonbinding methane agreement, $53 million over five years. It calls on the participating industrialized countries to help poorer countries capture and market methane leaking from countries to use American expertise to develop methods of capturing the gas from landfills, coal mines and oil and gas operations.

The gas would then be sold for energy.

Michael O. Leavitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, said the agreement was an important step that would lead to "an environmental and economic harvest" for participating countries. The goal is to capture nine million tons of methane a year by 2015.

I find it an odd position to be applauding an ecology and energy policy move by the Bush administration.


Group Says Iran Has Secret Nuclear Arms Program (NY Times)

To add a twist to the Iran story, we have an Iranian dissident group claiming

Group Says Iran Has Secret Nuclear Arms Program

Published: November 17, 2004 (NY Times)

An Iranian opposition group says it has new evidence that Iran is producing enriched uranium at a covert Defense Ministry facility in Tehran that has not been disclosed to United Nations inspectors.

The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, is planning to announce its finding in Paris on Wednesday. The group says that inspection of the site would demonstrate that Iran is secretly trying to produce nuclear weapons even while promising to freeze a critical part of its declared nuclear program, which it maintains is intended purely for civilian purposes.

A senior official of the group, Muhammad Mohaddessin, said in a telephone interview late on Tuesday that the group had shared the new information "very recently'' with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But he and other officials of the group said it had not discussed the matter with the United States government, and its claims could not be verified.

It's all very convenient, isn't it? A few days ago Iran and the EU come to an agreement to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, only to be met by U.S. grumbles that we'll have to see if they really live up to it. And a few days later this dissident group unveils new evidence.

Reminds me of the Iraqi dissident groups used by Washington DC to promote stories that justified the invasion of Iraq, but those stories turned out to be entirely false. (mobile weapons labs, that never were found, and more)

To be fair - Iran has admitted to an Uranium enrichment program that would, as a side effect, make weapons-grade materials. And they were doing this outside the globally agreed-to parameters that all such activities be done under the inspection rituals established by the UN. Nuclear profileration is of great concern, and the world had previously agreed that the best approach to controlling the spread of this dangerous weapon was for every country to submit to UN inspection. Part of the struggle at the moment is that North Korea, Iran, and a small number of other countries, have refused to submit to these inspections, and have since been caught secretly enriching Uranium to make weapons grade materials.

At the same time we must remember that the Neocon agenda is to reshape the middle east with this folly of a plan to "install democracy" by first toppling Iraq's government, and then Iran's. The "it's convenient" I alluded to above is how convenient it is for the Neocon agenda that someone stepped forward to challenge the EU/Iran agreement just when it appeared the justification to invade Iran might have been crumbling.


Monday, November 15, 2004

Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment

Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment

Sunday, November 14, 2004 Posted: 7:02 PM EST (0002 GMT) (CNN.COM)

The article is saying that Iran has reached an agreement with the EU proposals. This is the negotiations I've been tracking in this category. This is good news, as it removes one of the justifications the neocon's were likely to employ before invading Iran.

Of course, to make sure it's not so simple, the neocon's have this to say:

The U.S. State Department had no immediate reaction to Sunday's report, but spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters last week, "The question of where they stand -- where Iran stands -- when we get to the board meeting is the important one."

"Will Iran have complied at that point with the requirements of the IAEA board?," Boucher asked. "Will the IAEA be in a position to verify that and to say that they are engaging in the verification of that kind of promise and activity?"

He added, "Ultimately, it's what Iran does that matters, not just what they have agreed to."


Monday, November 8, 2004

Documents: U.S. had plan to nuke N. Korea

Documents: U.S. had plan to nuke N. Korea

Seoul, South Korea, Nov. 7 (UPI) in Washington Times

The article summarises a newly declassified report on the battle plans considered against North Korea in 1998. Among them was a plan to nuke them, if they attacked South Korea.