The liar Susan Rice (Iran)

Susan E. Rice (U.S. ambassador to the U.N., CNN.sitroom March 31 2010)

Susan Rice. We will work with our partners in the Security Council, to mount serious, and intensified, pressure on Iran. We think, that the package of elements, that we have proposed, and that will be discussed, in further depth, will put meaningful pressure, on Iran.

And that’s our intention. It is, to make it clear, that Iran has a choice. And should it continue on the path, of refusing to engage seriously, with the United States, and other members of the international community, to give up its nuclear weapons program, then that pressure will intensify.”

Susan E. Rice (U.S. U.N. ambassador, New York City), CNN video clip (CNN International, World Report, “Nuclear Iran,” April 1 2010, 0701z, Anjali Rao, presenter, Hong Kong) (CNN International, The Brief, “Iran’s Nuclear Program,” April 1 2010, 1504z, Jim Clancy, presenter, Atlanta).

Liars league

Susan Rice lied, when she said, Iran has a nuclear weapons program, because she knows it to be an unassailable fact, that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, so far as she knows.

So far as anybody else knows, either, in the U.S. government, or its conspiracy partners, the EU3 (P3+1, U.S., U.K., France, Germany).

And that’s powerful evidence, as in the case of Iraq, that her claim is untrue, as well as a lie.

“With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran.” “Recent Media Report on Iran” (IAEA press briefing, 17 September 2009), reported, “no concrete proof that Iran has or has ever had a nuclear weapons programme” (UN News Centre, 17 September 2009).

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Especially, when you’re searching for it, with inspectors on the ground, for 7 long years (2,200+ inspector days), and with spies, and electronic surveillance, and defectors to bribe, and prisoners to torture.

The whole watching world learned that lesson well, and this lesson too: U.S. officials are bold liars, nothing they say can be believed, without unimpeachable evidence.

Especially, the P2, the two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council not promoting lies, Russia and China, they lived the Iraq lies. Russia repeatedly said (Putin, Lavrov), from the beginning to the end, they had seen no evidence, of any WMD, in Iraq. They repeatedly say the same, about Iran.

So, why does she feel the need to lie? Susan E. Rice, and her co-conspirators.

Who do they hope to deceive? with their lie. Who do they hope to empower to lie? with their lie. Empower to pretend to believe their lie? with their lie.

The media certainly, they empower with their lie, to spread their lie, with gusto.

That video clip is a separate lie, by CNN (anonymous producers, editors). CNN omitted an admission by Rice, when questioned by Wolf Blitzer (the origin of that clip), that her assertion is not an unassailable fact (as she lied), but rather a mere “assessment” instead.

That’s a second lie by Susan Rice, because U.S. intelligence makes no such assessment (a nuclear weapons program).

“Assessment” is a term of art, denoting that it is not a fact, so far as the assessment-makers know, they have no proof of it, it’s an hypothesis, based on no evidence, or ambiguous evidence, or inconclusive evidence, a guess, a speculation, a surmise, a possibility — not a “fact,” as the liar Susan Rice, and her co-conspirators, claim:

“We use phrases such as we judge, we assess, and we estimate — and probabilistic terms such as probably and likely — to convey analytical assessments and judgments. Such statements are not facts, proof, or knowledge. These assessments and judgments generally are based on collected information, which often is incomplete or fragmentary. Some assessments are built on previous judgments. In all cases, assessments and judgments are not intended to imply that we have “proof” that shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.”

“What We Mean When We Say: An Explanation of Estimative Language” (unnumbered page 4), Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, “Key Judgments” {135kb.pdf} (NIE: National Intelligence Estimate, November 2007, authors, anonymous, editors, NIC: National Intelligence Council, approved, NIB: National Intelligence Board, published, DNI: Director of National Intelligence, December 3 2007).

A liar ambassador to the U.N., a liar president, a liar secretary of state, a liar secretary of defense, a liar national security adviser, a liar chief of the joint chiefs of staff, liar military officials, liar intelligence officials, hundreds of U.S. official liars, dozens, hundreds, members of congress among them.

This is a ditto, of Iraq.

Will they expand their ditto? to its full scope? An economic blockade, malnourishing children, killing hundreds of thousands, denying “dual use” hospital equipment, supplies, ambulances, scientific equipment, water-sewer treatment chemicals, criminal targeting of cvilian objects (like Iran’s IAEA safeguarded nuclear facilities), a criminal war of aggression, killing hundreds of thousands, exiling 5 million, external and internal, maiming tens of thousands, orphaning, widowing, tens of thousands, hostage-taking, torture, murder, destruction, armed robbery, loss, homes, businesses, the life’s work of millions.

Sets their mouth watering, the most of them, their pulse quickening.

Susan E. Rice, and the company she keeps.

Susan Rice. The president has committed us to building adequate, and sufficient, and strong, pressure on Iran, to make clear to Iran, that it faces a choice. It can either give up its nuclear weapons program and, and rejoin the community of, of nations, or it can face increased isolation, and intensified pressure.

* * *

Wolf Blitzer. Do you have any doubt? that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb?

Susan Rice. Wolf, I think all of the evidence indicates, that their program is not as they state, for peaceful purposes only, that there is a military motive to it.

And that is our assessment.

And we have given Iran ample opportunity, in the context of the proposals, that we, and other members, of the P5-plus-1, have put forward, to demonstrate, that it is a peaceful program, with peaceful intent, and they have not been willing, or able, to do so.

So our conclusion is, that this is a serious potential threat, to us, and important partners in the region, and we are treating it as such.”

Susan E. Rice (U.S. U.N. ambassador, New York City), interviewed by Wolf Blitzer (CNN, The Situation Room, Washington D.C., March 31 2010, first hour, 1700edt, 2100z), transcript.

This is a nest of lies, by Susan E. Rice, a member of the president’s cabinet, no doubt obeying orders, from her bosses, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The opposite is the truth.

“All of the evidence indicates, that their program is” precisely “as they state, for peaceful purposes only.”

The “evidence” to the contrary is zero.

“Past outstanding issues”

Over several years, the IAEA investigated the history of Iran’s nuclear program, Iran answered questions, provided documents, access, to sites and people. The IAEA found, one by one, that claimed, or pretended, suspicions had innocent explanations.

Finally, the IAEA and Iran agreed, on a formal, written, work plan, to finish the job.

This agreement detailed the 6 remaining “past outstanding issues,” and required the IAEA to state all remaining questions about them. “Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues, Tehran – 21 August 2007” (INFCIRC/711, 27 August 2007).

This agreed work plan specified that, when it was done, that was the end of the matter, and Iran’s nuclear activities would be treated under routine IAEA safeguards. This implied a report, from the IAEA, that all those issues were settled and no longer a concern of the U.N. Security Council:

“IV. General Understandings

1. These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s past nuclear program and activities.

2. The Agency agreed to provide Iran with all remaining questions according to the above work plan. This means that after receiving the questions, no other questions are left. Iran will provide the Agency with the required clarifications and information.

3. The Agency’s delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran’s nuclear activities.

4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.”

Six months later, the IAEA was obliged to report, that Iran had completed the agreed work plan, 100%, answered all the questions, provided all the documents, interviews, site visits, meetings, required by the agreed work plan, to the complete satisfaction of the IAEA.

Nothing remained for Iran to do, as to those “past outstanding issues” cited by the U.S. and the EU3, as the excuse, for the referral to the U.N. Security Council, 2 years earlier (GOV/2006/14, 4 February 2006).

“53. The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings — in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the Gchine mine — or are not inconsistent with its findings — in the case of the contamination at the technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC.

Therefore, the Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage.”

The remaining two work plan issues were settled, previously, namely, (1) “plutonium experiments” (100mg) (GOV/2007/48, 10 August 2007), paragraph 10: “the Agency … now considers this issue as resolved,” and (2) “acquisition of P-1 and P-2 centrifuge technology” (GOV/2007/58, 15 November 2007), (a) “the 1987 offer,” paragraph 11: “the Agency has concluded that Iran’s statements are consistent with other information available to the Agency concerning Iran’s acquisition of declared P-1 centrifuge enrichment technology in 1987,” (b) “early research and development” (1987-1993), paragraph 13: “Iran’s statements about this phase of R&D are not inconsistent with the Agency’s findings,” (c) “the 1993 offer and subsequent R&D” (1993-1999), paragraph 18: “information provided by Iran on the timing of these purchases and the quantities involved is consistent with the Agency’s findings,” (d) “acquisition of P-2 centrifuge technology” (1996, R&D 2002-2004), paragraph 23: “the Agency has concluded that Iran’s statements on the content of the declared P-2 R&D activities are consistent with the Agency’s findings”.

Therefore, by February 22 2008 — 2 years after referral to the U.N. Security Council — the entire history of Iran’s nuclear program was understood, by the IAEA, fully, completely, with no remaining “past outstanding issues,” no remaining questions or suspicions about them — except for one question, which had nothing to do with Iran, required no action by Iran.

Namely (paragraph 19), the IAEA awaited a reply from Pakistan, to confirm, that the 15-page uranium metal document (which the IAEA had also seen in another country, presumably Libya), that Pakistan also had it — Iran said, it was from Pakistan, where that document came from to them, in 1987, unsolicited, along with the items from Pakistan which Iran bought and paid for, viz, blueprints for P-1 centrifuges, and components of two sample centrifuges (GOV/2008/4, 22 February 2008).

“A.2. Uranium Metal Document

19. On 8 November 2007, the Agency received a copy from Iran of the 15-page document describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal and the machining of enriched uranium metal into hemispheres, which are components of nuclear weapons.

Iran reiterated that this document had been received along with the P-1 centrifuge documentation in 1987 and that it had not been requested by Iran.

The Agency is still waiting for a response from Pakistan on the circumstances of the delivery of this document in order to understand the full scope and content of the offer made by the network in 1987 (GOV/2006/15, paras 20–22).”

Pakistan soon replied, corroborating what Iran said, as ElBaradei reported, in his next quarterly report (IAEA director-general) (GOV/2008/15, 26 May 2008):

“24. It should be noted that the Agency currently has no information – apart from the uranium metal document – on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies.

As regards the uranium metal document found in Iran, Pakistan has confirmed, in response to the Agency’s request (GOV/2007/58 para. 25), that an identical document exists in Pakistan.”

Under the work plan agreement (quoted above), Pakistan’s reply settled this — the last of the “past outstanding issues” — on these undisputed facts, to wit:

The 15-page uranium metal document was not created by Iran, it was not solicited by Iran, it was not used by Iran, for any purpose, it has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program, it is not a blueprint, it can not be used to make anything, it’s an advertisement, apparently, a description of something else Iran could buy from the network (a casting factory), it was given to Iran, by the A.Q. Kahn network, which also gave it to another country, presumably Libya.

“20. … 15-page document … It did not, however, include dimensions or other specifications for machined pieces ….

22. … there is no indication about the actual use of the document … the Agency is aware that the intermediaries had this document, as well as other similar documents, which the Agency has seen in another Member State.”

GOV/2006/15, 27 February 2006.

Yet, in blatant violation of the work plan agreement (above), IAEA reports continue to cite that document as an issue Iran is required to explain. But the IAEA agreed, in the written work plan, there is nothing further to be said about that document, once Iran gave it to the IAEA. There is not a scrap of evidence, that this document has anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program, any more than a newspaper, or a telephone book (i.e., nothing).

“Alleged studies”

Separate from the “past outstanding issues,” long ago settled, under the agreed work plan (early 2008), the U.S. created new issues, by producing electronic images of alleged documents, shown to the IAEA (but not Iran), on a laptop computer, a PowerPoint presentation, produced by U.S. officials.

U.S. officials do not vouch for the documents.

U.S. officials produce no evidence of their origin. Nothing to show they came from Iran. No chain of custody, to show that other documents, from other sources, were not mixed with them.

U.S. officials conceal, what their experts say, their forensic examination, their opinion, about the documents, their authenticity.

Dogs that don’t bark. Compelling evidence, that U.S. officials know, or believe, the documents are forgeries, some of them, many of them, most of them. What other U.S. officials might know for certain, because they created them, and their Israeli partners, covert operators, in a conspiracy to lie.

For want of such authentication evidence, expert opinion, access to the documents, the laptop, the IAEA refuses to term the images of these documents as “evidence” and, instead, terms them “allegations,” collectively, the “alleged studies.”

Iran can not reply to these images, because U.S. officials refuse to show them to Iran, refuse to give the IAEA a copy of them, most of them. For the very good reason, presumably, that these images would soon be validated as forgeries, some of them, many of them.

The IAEA and Iran agreed how to deal with these images, the “alleged studies,” in a separate section of their written agreement — not part of the work plan for “past outstanding issues.”

The IAEA agreed to give Iran a copy of what alleged documents it could, from the alleged studies, and Iran agreed to reply, with its assessment of them:

“III. Alleged Studies.

Iran reiterated that it considers the following alleged studies as politically motivated and baseless allegations.

The Agency will however provide Iran with access to the documentation it has in its possession regarding: the Green Salt Project, the high explosive testing and the missile re-entry vehicle.

As a sign of good will and cooperation with the Agency, upon receiving all related documents, Iran will review and inform the Agency of its assessment.”

On the provenance evidence, these alleged documents are probably supplied by Israel, via a cutout, to the MEK, which passed them to Germany. See, e.g., Gareth Porter, “Iran Nuke Laptop Data Came from Terror Group” (IPS: Inter Press Service, February 29 2008), copy (Antiwar.com), Gareth Porter, “Leaked Iran Paper Based on Intel That Split IAEA” (IPS: Inter Press Service, October 6 2009), copy (Antiwar.com), Gareth Porter, “IAEA Conceals Evidence Iran Documents Were Forged” (IPS, September 14 2009), copy (Antiwar.com).

Are the alleged studies, some of the images, created or doctored? by U.S. experts? Israeli officials? in a covert action? like “Operation Merlin”? where U.S. officials attempted to plant incriminating documents on Iran, fabricated faulty blueprints, for a firing block, and slipped it under the door, of Iran’s embassy, in Vienna. James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, Chapter 9, “A Rogue Operation” (Free Press, Simon & Schuster, New York, published January 3 2006), excerpts, James Risen, “CIA used A-bomb plan as bait, U.S. gave flawed design to Iran” (Toronto Star, March 4 2006).

Looks that way:

“Questions had also been raised about the technical quality of the alleged Iranian designs for a missile reentry vehicle that was apparently aimed at accommodating a nuclear weapon.

Experts at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, who ran computer simulations on the studies, determined none of them would have worked, according to Washington Post investigative reporter Dafna Linzer, in February 2006.”

Gareth Porter, “The Leaking Game, Planted News Stories Show New Bid by West to Say Iran Seeks Nuclear Weapons” (CounterPunch, August 26 2009), citing, Dafna Linzer, “Strong Leads and Dead Ends in Nuclear Case Against Iran” (The Washington Post, Wednesday February 8 2006), also titled,Leaked stories taint Iran nuclear debate” (Asia Times, August 27 2009), “ElBaradei Foes Leaked Stories to Force His Hand on Iran” (antiwar.com, August 26 2009), and see, Gareth Porter, “
Iran and IAEA re-enter missile row
” (Asia Times, September 22 2009).

As far as I know, nobody ever made a bomb, from uranium, small enough, to fit on Iran’s missiles, warhead weight, one ton, a 2,000-pound bomb. Plutonium, yes, but Iran has no plutonium. Israel and the U.S., they have plutonium. Uranium is a very poor ingredient for a small bomb. The U.S. bombed Hiroshima, with a uranium bomb, but it was huge, weighed 9,700 pounds (4,409 kg, kilograms), the explosive core weighed 141 pounds (64.1 kg), 80% enriched uranium U-235.

Recently, a document, probably from Israel, was falsely reported, in The Times (London), as a genuine Iranian document.

It turned out be fabricated, intentionally misrepresented in the newspaper report, by dishonest reporter(s), editor(s), at The Times, historically a respected “newspaper of record,” now a Rupert Murdoch tabloid. May be the document is an invention, may be a retyped genuine document, with improvements, material added or subtracted, may be names of individuals from open sources, and anyway ambiguous, with innocent explanations, with no official paper, stamps, markings, which an authentic document would have. Justin Raimondo, “The Kamm Scam: Fake ‘Journalist’ Defends a Forgery: Britain’s leading neocon pushes fake Iranian ‘nuclear memo'” (Antiwar.com, January 4 2010) .

Presumably that’s an exemplar, of what’s on the laptop.

Like the green salt document, an innocent letter, having nothing to do with a nuclear program, but with mysterious handwriting on it, having nothing to do with the topic of the letter. But there is no handwriting on the original letter, furnished to the IAEA by Iran, hence a likely forgery, the handwritten note.

The IAEA did not produce any alleged documents, for Iran to reply to, for 6 months, until Iran completed the work plan.

Then, suddenly, the IAEA produced a few (February 3-5 2008), and then a few more (February 15 2008), when the U.S. recognized, that Iran had closed the nuclear file, by completing the work plan, Iran disproved all allegations, proved conclusively that its nuclear program was entirely peaceable.

Drip, drip, drip, new documents, it’s an endless road, a way to keep the file open, to perpetuate, forever, abuse of Iran, alleging Iran is building a nuclear weapon, but producing no concrete proof, because it’s impossible to prove a negative, the bomb program Iran doesn’t have.

A ditto of Iraq, when the IAEA reported, in about 1998, it had completely destroyed all traces of Iraq’s nuclear program, and the U.S. refused to accept that result, stating, that the U.S. would veto any resolution — declaring Iraq had complied with all its obligations in the nuclear file — so long as the Saddam regime remained in power, the actual facts didn’t matter, regime-change was the U.S. goal, an excuse to attack Iraq.

“54. The one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme is the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle. …

The Agency was able to show some relevant documentation to Iran on 3-5 February 2008 and is still examining the allegations made and the statements provided by Iran in response.

Iran has maintained that these allegations are baseless and that the data have been fabricated.

The Agency’s overall assessment requires, inter alia, an understanding of the role of the uranium metal document, and clarifications concerning the procurement activities of some military related institutions still not provided by Iran.

The Agency only received authorization to show some further material to Iran on 15 February 2008. …

In light of the above, the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard.”

In compliance with the work plan, Iran provided the IAEA its assessment, on May 14 2008, a “117-page presentation responding to the allegations” in the alleged documents which the IAEA supplied to Iran (GOV/2008/38, paragraph 15, 15 September 2008).

Missiles are not “nuclear facilities,” and the IAEA has no authority to demand access to them. In Iraq, the IAEA and UNSCOM, permitted themselves to be infiltrated by CIA agents, who installed electronic bugs, in facilities they inspected, and provided targeting information, to enable the U.S. to later bomb those sites.

Fuel for the TRR: Tehran Research Reactor

Contrary to the liar Susan Rice, her claim, Iran has a standing offer, to deliver its low enriched uranium, to be taken out of Iran, in return for fuel, for its Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), proof of its peaceable intent, as Susan Rice claims to believe, until Iran actually does it, at which point it will prove nothing, she’ll be quick to say, the liar Susan Rice, because Iran continues to enrich uranium.

The U.S. demands, that Iran trust the U.S., export its uranium, and then wait a year or so, trust France, Russia, to deliver the fuel. A promise the U.S. made before, and then refused. Ditto France, they promised, and then refused. Ditto Germany, they promised, and then refused. Ditto Russia, they promised, and then refused (centrifuge plant, May 10 1995), ditto China, they promised, and then refused (uranium conversion plant), ditto Argentina, they promised, and then refused (uranium-dioxide conversion plant, fuel fabrication plant).

All those dittos were directly in response to abuse by the U.S., requests, urgings, threats, torts, demanding breach of contracts, each event a material breach, by the U.S. of its international obligations, under the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty), time after time after time, a long, revulsive, history of abuse, bullying, hooliganism.

Iran’s standing offer eliminates another ditto, and gives Susan Rice what she says she wants, a simultaneous exchange, just like at the shops, you pay your money, you get your merchandise, nobody has to trust anybody.

“Obama’s law”

But this is not what they want, else they would do it. What they want, Susan Rice, and her bosses, and their large conspiracy of liars, they want the U.N.S.C to adopt more sanctions — not because of Iran’s non-existant nuclear weapons program, or non-existant “military motive,” their lie.

They want the U.N.S.C. to impose more sanctions, on this ground, that Iran “refuses to live up to its international obligations,” viz, Iran will not obey previous U.N.S.C. resolutions (demanding Iran suspend its enrichment industry).

That’s what Barack Obama decreed, at the U.N.S.C. meeting he chaired, that a U.N.S.C. resolution is “law,” even if it’s objective has been accomplished, even if its asserted facts and opinions were since proven wrong, and anyway changed, even if it’s illegal, outside the jurisdiction of the U.N.S.C., to adopt it.

That’s the new law of the world, Obama decreed.

So why lie? that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. To what end? It matters not, according to Obama’s law. All that matters, he says, is this, to wit, the U.N.S.C. ordered Iran to do something, and Iran won’t do it. That’s sufficient. Whether it’s right or wrong, outdated, illegal, that matters not.

And the emperor’s butler nods in obedience, promotes his master’s orders, Gordon Brown (U.K. prime minister). He told the Chilcot inquiry, that he would urge, and vote again, today, to attack Iraq. It doesn’t matter, he said, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It only matters, that Saddam refused to obey U.N.S.C. resolutions, as Brown claimed to believe, that’s reason enough, he said, to destroy Iraq, the lives of millions of its citizens. Even if the object of those resolutions was long before accomplished, the destruction of his WMD, his accounting records too, at the same time, in 1991, before the U.N. BW inspectors arrived.

At the U.N. security council, Obama pronounced the new world order, as he would have it, that 9 nations can order all other nations to do, or not do, as ordered, and that’s “law,” Obama decrees, binding on the whole world (except the United States).

Behold. A new monarch is born. A resurrection. Le loi c’est moi. A new age dawns, the rule of the 9 tyrants.

I first heard this notion, when I watched a repulsive speech, delivered, by the U.K. U.N. ambassador, on an earlier Iran resolution. He said the same, that the resolution is “law,” and Iran must obey it.

A thuggish character, a bully, with a gangster air, spitting his words through clenched teeth, he soon disappeared, from the stage, I paid him no mind. But, in hindsight, he was speaking for the conspiracy, their secret agreement, how to destroy Iran’s lawful enrichment industry, with no proof, no evidence, of Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.

All the conspiracy has to do is get 9 yes votes on the U.N.S.C., and job done. Those votes are easy to get, by lying about the facts, flattery, bribes, threats.

Unlike the U.K.’s ambassador, Barack Obama is a Harvard lawyer, and so I conclude this: If you want your son or daughter to be either ignorant, or a bold liar, or both, then send them to Harvard Law School.

I don’t believe Barack Obama is ignorant. I believe he’s a bold liar, about matters of life and death, an intolerable character flaw, which he can, however, renounce, by a public confession and adopting policies based on truth, not fiction.

Presumably, Obama was desperate to conceal, from the public, including his own citizens, the fact, that the U.N.S.C. resolutions on Iran might be unlawful, that Iran has a good argument, a good reason to disobey them, that Iran had done nothing wrong, at the time, or since, and all questions then cited, about Iran’s enrichment program, those questions were long ago answered, the IAEA reported, long before Obama made his speech.

Barack Obama surely learned it, at Harvard Law School, that the likes of the U.N. Security Council is not a king, it’s a creature of law, with its hands tied, authorized to deal with a narrow topic, threats to international peace and security.

But, Iran’s IAEA safeguarded nuclear enrichment industry, that was not a threat, at the time of the first resolution, said the Russian and U.K. foreign ministers.

This fact accounts for a conspicuous omission from the resolutions, the negotiated absence, of any declaration of a threat, any finding of a threat.

There being no threat, the U.N.S.C. has no jurisdiction to order the U.S., to shut down Boeing Corporation, its airliner manufacturing industry, an Airbus competitor.

And equally, no jurisdiction, to order Iran, to shut down its uranium enrichment industry, even though it might take away business, in the future, from the tyrants.

In the meantime, after the first resolution, and over time, Iran disproved, to the 100% satisfaction of the IAEA, 100% of the concerns about Iran’s enrichment industry, claimed at the time, to justify referral to the U.N.S.C. in the first place, chiefly the Pakistani origin, on IAEA swipes, of some microscopic particles of enriched uranium.

Iran, at the time of that referral, was in 100% compliance with its safeguards agreeement, said the IAEA — and had been, for more than 2 years previously — and that’s why Iran claims, the IAEA Board of Governor’s had no legal authority to make the referral in the first place, to the U.N.S.C. (GOV/2006/14, 4 February 2006).

The numerous material breaches, of the NPT, by the U.S. and by all the other powerful countries bullied by the U.S., determined to violate Iran’s treaty rights, to develop atoms for peace projects, seizing Iran’s money and property, breaching supply contracts–

That abuse — led by the U.S. — that law-breaking, by the U.S., and those it bullied, that is the very reason cited by Iran, for conducting its small number of lawful laboratory experiments, without reporting them to the IAEA.

And, that reason is a legal justification, for what Iran did, to protect its rights. That’s what the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, says, the customary international law it enunciates.

A 100% legal justification for Iran’s decision to not report those lawful laboratory experiments, with a quantity of uranium, so inconsequential, that, if enriched, and if you sneezed, it would vanish:

“[T]he quantities of nuclear material involved have not been large … The total amount of material, approximately 1.8 tonnes, is 0.13 effective kilograms of uranium.”

GOV/2003/40 (IAEA, 6 June 2003), page 7, paragraph 33 and footnote 6.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331 (t.reg. 18232)

“Article 60. Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach.

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part. …

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in: …

(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.”

Iran gave the U.S. ample opportunity, on many prior occasions, to demonstrate, that the U.S. was willing, to obey its international obligations, under the NPT (nuclear nonproliferation treaty), and facilitate Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, atoms for peace.

Then, on March 23 2005, Iran did it again. Iran offered, among many other things, “immediate conversion of all enriched uranium to fuel rods to preclude even the technical possibility of further enrichment” (INFCIRC/648).

This is the result, Susan Rice and her conspiracy say they want, what they say will “demonstrate, that it is a peaceful program” — what Iran offered to do, 4 years earlier.

The U.S. pretended it didn’t exist, Iran’s offer, it never happened, ditto the U.S. puppet negotiators, the EU-3 (U.K., France, Germany).

A few months later, they issued an ultimatum, that Iran must shut down, permanently, its uranium enrichment industry, and trust them, the U.S. and the EU-3, to supply Iran its nuclear needs, what they had already promised to do, when they signed the NPT, what they already refused to do, many times since. (INFCIRC/651, August 5 2005) (“a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light water power and research reactors”).

It’s obvious to me, what Jack Straw later admitted, the goal of the U.S.-EU3 conspiracy, from the beginning, was to deny Iran its enrichment industry, even though it’s IAEA safeguarded, and there’s no evidence of any nuclear weapons program.

This conspiracy attracts big support, from thousands of people, on secret DoD-funded consulting contracts, in think tanks, universities, media, and in the complex (military, industrial, congressional). Turmoil, fears, violence, adventure, it all keeps the money flowing, campaign contributions, gifts, trips to Israel, weapons sales to Arabs, weapons give-aways to Israel, thousands of liars, talking on TV, testifying to Congress, strutting big smiles, hundreds of thousands, millions, gloating gangsters, robbing their neighbors’ lands and water.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (Warlaw), updated April 18 2010

Advertisements

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

%d bloggers like this: