IAEA Report: Green Light to Strike Iran?

Last week a new classified IAEA Report on nuclear verification in Iran was circulated to the Agency’s Board of Governors and the UN Security Council. Curiously enough, it was immediately leaked to the Associated Press and gained a hefty coverage by the international media condemning Tehran for ‘working on all aspects of research toward making a nuclear weapon.’

On Thursday November 17, 2011 this report entitled ‘Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran’ will be considered behind closed doors by the 35-strong IAEA Board to draw up appropriate action. Unlike previous IAEA documents regarding ‘Iranian nuclear problem’, the paper is based not only on the evidence gathered by IAEA inspectors legally stationed on the Iranian territory, but several foreign intelligence agencies as well.

According to a Russian source in Vienna who has access to the report, the context of information presented by these agencies very much resembles notorious ‘intelligence’ aimed to justify NATO invasion in Iraq in 2003 on alleged Saddam’s WMD dossier, a leakage officially recognized as fake years later.

Many statements made recently with the reference to this still unpublished report, are obviously false. For example, the IAEA Report does not even mention Russian nuclear physicist Vyacheslav Danilenko, who Washington Post blamed last week for assisting the Iranians to create a nuclear device in 1990s. The Russian State Corporation ‘Rosatom’ and Foreign Affairs Ministry have already made to IAEA all necessary clarifications on the matter explaining that there are no other spheres of nuclear cooperation between Russia and Iran but construction of Bushehr atomic power plant and the sales of medical isotopes.

It is critically important to understand whether IAEA has really acquired any new and trustworthy facts confirming the existence of military component in the legitimate Iranian nuclear program or we are facing a deliberate and counterproductive scaremongering. At the same time the issue of reliability of documentation management inside IAEA Secretariat should be inevitably raised. The repeating of uncontrolled leakages on such a sensitive issue as nuclear proliferation can lead to eventual complete loss of trust to the IAEA officials among their national counteragents. ‘The data are very scandalous’, – confirmed our source in Vienna, ‘But there are no new factual details in the report.’

No doubt that the leakage of the new IAEA report was organized to set up a sufficient pretext to impose additional sanctions on Iran or even launch a military operation against Tehran regime. The president of Israel Shimon Perez has already announced that the Jewish state is inclining to the military solution of the Iranian problem rather than the diplomatic one. So an endeavor by the global elites to foment another conflict in the Middle East to restructure and reformat the region into chaotic Greater Middle East is evident. There is no sense in analyzing the argumentation of those who are triggering a new round of anti-Iranian hysteria as it is nothing else but another subtle propaganda campaign realized by a powerful conglomerate of international media. Their ability to cover the events independently was already shown to us during 8-months-long Libyan drama. Today’s Iran is the only obstacle on the way to Greater Middle East project.

At the same time Israel turned up to be in a quite sensitive situation. For the last three years the US policy towards Israel has been notably shifted. It is no longer an ‘enormous US aircraft carrier’ in the Middle East. In the context of Arab spring revolutions many experts think that the USA has stood Israel up. Now Tel-Aviv has to change its policy or undertake a decisive action to regain a dominating position in the region. However the success of such action is absolutely not guaranteed (just recall the Israeli failure in Lebanon in 2006).

As far as the Iranian nuclear program is concerned, two points are crystal clear. First, there are no serious advances in this program although Tehran’s quite logical desire to achieve a nuclear warhead might be a case. Second, if the West is so much concerned over alleged Iranian nuclear research, why does it keep silent about existing Israeli nuclear missiles? Why IAEA does not prepare reports about Israeli nuclear threat along with Iranian?

What we are witnessing is a typical example of double standards in international politics, related to venal interests of a few powerful players. Some countries are declared ‘rogue states’, the others are ‘leaders’ and ‘role models’. Obviously, their distinction is a complete excess, voluntarism and gang-style approach to international affairs. The ‘world order’ and ‘global justice’ is certainly not the terminus of such politics. We can only speculate on the outcome taking into account another impending wave of financial crisis getting closer. Many analysts predict catastrophic scenario to the world.

Meanwhile alarming suggestions about another world war that would eventually regulate the financial market and stabilize the international relations sound very provocative. The US economy is heavily militarized; with US$700 billion military budget exceeding all defense spending of the rest of the world summed up. So the overall tendency is clear: the West desperately seeks a big war that would facilitate burning off all unsecured stocks of the US dollars and deflate speculative bubbles on the key commodity markets. The only thing the powerful players do not explain the Western people is that the price of such global reshuffle will be a drastic fall of their living standards.

4 Comments

  1. The last paragraph of the article clearly sums up US-Israeli-NATO mission—the war on Iran with the pretext being the IAEA report that Tehran is developing a nuclear weapons intention. Why shouldn’t it when it very well knows that Israel wants to attack it to acheive a greater domination of the energy rich Middle East? The nuclear weapons alternative is the only option available to Tehran to foil that objective.

    The Eurozone is in deep financial crisis and no less is the US. The two partners and Israel need a war—desparately, not only to deplete their arsenal but to go into full production, create full employment, boost tax revenues, reduce budget deficit, return their economies into positive territory and use up the surplus dollars (burn up the surplus as the article correctly suggests). The Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya wars have been small so a much bigger war is needed. Both Iran and Pakistan are potential targets and both are viewed as threats to western & Isreali domination. Both are essential impediments not only towards a domination of the region but also towards China as potential threat – militarily and economically.

    It is my beleif that the west at the behest of a strong lobby is gearing up for a world war in mid-2013 follolwing the crowning of a pro-Israeli US President, one from the Republican ranks.

  2. Quote: Israel has started to send in paramilitary troops. It is reported that the UK government anticipates an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities before 2012. While the report stemmed from a report in British tabloid the Daily Mail, speculations about an Israeli strike have reached a feverish pitch in recent months. Also, a Sydney Morning Herald article states that US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta received a noncommittal answer from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak when he asked that Israel first obtain US permission before any strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Source: The Faster Times [Online] [Cided: 15 November 2011] http://www.thefastertimes.com/news/2011/11/14/is-israel-behind-blast-at-iranian-military-base/

  3. Hi Andre,

    Iran in particular remains a fluctuating foreign policy issue. Thanks for providing in depth commentary on the subject. This recent panel discusses that matter:

    http://russiaprofile.org/experts_panel/49417.html

    An excerpt from the above linked panel misinforms by giving an incomplete overview:

    “Instead, Russia has consistently joined the Islamists in denouncing the West at every turn for double standards. And the fact that brings all these contradictions together into a semblance of psychological consistency is that the resentment is always aimed at the stronger power: the West and its global leadership position. No one cares about the logic of it, or whether the accuser isn’t guilty of far more extreme and less justifiable double standards (as is usually in fact the case); the phrase ‘double standards’ has become a routine code word for ‘blame the West.’ And so we arrive at an approximate description of the entrenched ideology- mentality of much of the Russian elite: one of resentment and polemic against the West, and a desire to harm it without regard for Russia’s actual interests in the matter at hand, whether in Iran or Syria or elsewhere; giving full regard instead to the psychological interest of some Russians in ‘sticking it’ to the West.”

    ****

    If anything, the greater reality is neocon to neolib influenced Western policy in former Yugoslavia having a stick it to Russia mindset.

    Russia isn’t marching lock step with Iran. For all its faults, Iran hasn’t caused Russia trouble in the Caucasus. Russian policy vis-a-vis Iran is motivated by other factors not having to do with sticking it to the West. It’s not like Russia can expect Western support if the Kremlin does everything the neolibs and neocons prefer. While not gung ho on Iran’s government, note that it’s on relatively good terms with predominately Christian Armenia and Iran’s Armenian community. The Iranian government hasn’t been supportive of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Iran doesn’t recognize Kosovo’s independence. There’s a realist side to the Iranian government (as opposed to a stance completely motivated by pan-Islamic sentiment), in conjunction with an Iranian population that in overall terms isn’t so extreme.

    Concerning Syria, the Russians government has called for restraint, in addition to seeking dialogue with the anti-Syrian opposition. Contrary to some of the spin out there, Russia has simultaneously sought good relations with the US, Iran and Israel – not an easy task, given the poor relations between Iran relative to the US and Israel.

    This piece from November 2005 relates to what I express in this set of comments –

    http://eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=en&nic=expert&pid=374&s=h53xql455wvuwxnruig3h4mg

    Best,

    Mike

  4. The IAEA report says MAYBE Iran is pursuing for nuclear bomb. Surprisingly even the former Mossad haed Gen. Dagan, Ehud Barak and Panetta has also said that Iran is not building a nuclear arsenal. GOP presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul has said many times that in American can live with nuclear Russia why it cannot live with a nuclear Iran.

    However, with all US rhetorics, it seems Obama administration has decided to let Israel fight its own wars in the Middle East, for a change.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/us-let-israel-attack-iran-alone/

Leave a Reply