Aggression Against Iran

Gordon Prather takes a look at the real implications of possible US aggression against Iran in June. I'm sure the neocons in the Bush administration would consider it a benefit is such aggression included the destruction of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Non-Proliferation Treaty since they consider all things "International" evil, but the rest of us should be really concerned.

..according to Sirus Naseri, a senior member of Iran's delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose Board of Governors meets next week in Vienna:

"To even imply that a nuclear weapon state would attack [IAEA] Safeguarded facilities of a non-nuclear weapon state pokes a hole right in the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and it deserves to be rejected severely."

With defacto members of the Likud party firmly in control of US foreign policy such action would not be without precedence.

And of course, Naseri is right. It was bad enough back in 1981 when the Israelis - not a "party" to the NPT - attacked and destroyed Osiraq, a French-supplied Safeguarded research reactor in Iraq.

The United Nations Security Council strongly condemned the military attack by Israel, which it considered to be "in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct." Furthermore, the attack was "a serious threat to the entire safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."

You see, the IAEA was made the international "safeguards" inspectorate by Article III of the NPT.

Like the uni-lateral Likudites in Israel there American counterparts have no use for International Treaties or inspections.

The key to preventing nuke proliferation is the international control of the production, processing, transformation and disposition of certain "nuclear" materials. In return for a promise not to acquire or seek to acquire nukes, the NPT recognizes the "inalienable right" of all signatories to enjoy the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy. But all NPT-proscribed "nuclear" materials - as well as the facilities in which they are stored, processed, transformed or consumed - have to be made subject to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement.

In the event the IAEA discovers "nuclear" materials and/or activities that should have been "declared" but were not, it reports that failure to the IAEA Board of Governors. In the event the IAEA discovers the "diversion" of nuclear materials - a violation of the NPT, itself - the IAEA Board may refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible action.

More than a year ago, Iran voluntarily signed an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement, vastly expanding the authority of IAEA inspectors to go anywhere and see anything. Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the IAEA Board of Governors at their last meeting that after a year-long exhaustive and intrusive inspection, he has found no evidence that Iran has ever attempted to acquire nukes or the makings thereof.

Hence, there are no violations of the NPT to report to the Security Council.

WMD all over again?

Well, the neo-crazies have gone ballistic. That's twice - first Iraq and now Iran - ElBaradei has given the lie to their charges that Islamic states had clandestine nuclear weapons programs in violation the NPT.

But, Bush is determined to get the "nuclear crisis" in Iran before the Security Council, somehow, so that he can get another ambiguous resolution that he could then use to justify an attack - by the U.S. or Israel - on Iran's Safeguarded facilities.

So what conceivable rationale could Bush manufacture?

Of course, as we have come to expect, Bush simply lied.

Well, later in the U.S.-EU news conference Bush made this claim:

"The reason we're having these discussions is because [the Iranians] were caught enriching uranium after they had signed a treaty saying they wouldn't enrich uranium. These discussions are occurring because they have breached a contract with the international community. They're the party that needs to be held to account, not any of us."

Bush manufactured all that. The EU-Iran agreement - which is being "monitored" by the IAEA - is not a "treaty." In any case, the Iranians were not "caught" enriching uranium. As best the IAEA can determine, the Iranians have yet to enrich any uranium. The Iranians merely agreed to suspend for six months or so any attempt to do so. They did not - initially - agree to suspend the manufacture of gas-centrifuges for enriching uranium. However, as a "confidence-building measure," they voluntarily agreed a few months ago to suspend those activities, too.

But, if the Europeans don't live up to their end of the agreement - and Bush is determined to see that they won't or can't - the Iranians have announced that they intend to resume - probably in June - all the IAEA Safeguarded activities they have currently suspended.

Maybe that's why the worst-kept secret in Washington is that we - in cahoots with our "ally" Israel - are planning to "take out" those Safeguarded facilities in June.

So, bye-bye, NPT. Hello, mushroom-shaped clouds.

From the same people who think you have to destroy a city to save it (Falluja) we now have you have to destroy a treaty to save it.