The Latest IAEA Iran Report

[DeadCanDance]

Highlights:

-IAEA has been able to confirm that no declared nuclear materials have been diverted to any alleged weapons program. In fact, no evidence of a nuclear weapons program has currently been found to exist.

-Iran continues to enrich uranium, in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution.

-IAEA carried out seven unannounced inspections of Iranian centrifuge cascade assemblies, and confirmed that Iran is currently only able to enrich uranium to 4% purity. Which is barely useful for civilian grade applications, and far below enrichment needed for nuclear weapons.

-Iran's cooperation has been mixed. Generally, Iran has provided sufficient and timely cooperation with IAEA inspectors. IAEA notes however, that the cooperation is reactive, and not proactive.

-A couple of outstanding issues remain, which IAEA seeks to address with Iran in the next few weeks. Having to do with increasing transparency of the entire scope and history of the iranian nuclear program. One, is if there is, or ever has been, alleged studies or research Iran has done with regard to nuclear weaponry. And two, IAEA needs further corroborations with regard to the P-1 and P-2 centrifuges and current enrichment activities, to build more confidence that there is complete tranparency and so that IAEA can determine that the program is completely civilian in nature, and there are no activites that could have military implications.


http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranIAEAreportNov15.pdf




I'm still not seeing a reason to bomb or go to war with them yet.

Aggressive diplomacy and inspections appears to be the prudent approach.

 

[Annie]

Highlights:

-IAEA has been able to confirm that no declared nuclear materials have been diverted to any alleged weapons program. In fact, no evidence of a nuclear weapons program has currently been found to exist.

-Iran continues to enrich uranium, in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution.

-IAEA carried out seven unannounced inspections of Iranian centrifuge cascade assemblies, and confirmed that Iran is currently only able to enrich uranium to 4% purity. Which is barely useful for civilian grade applications, and far below enrichment needed for nuclear weapons.

-Iran's cooperation has been mixed. Generally, Iran has provided sufficient and timely cooperation with IAEA inspectors. IAEA notes however, that the cooperation is reactive, and not proactive.

-A couple of outstanding issues remain, which IAEA seeks to address with Iran in the next few weeks. Having to do with increasing transparency of the entire scope and history of the iranian nuclear program. One, is if there is, or ever has been, alleged studies or research Iran has done with regard to nuclear weaponry. And two, IAEA needs further corroborations with regard to the P-1 and P-2 centrifuges and current enrichment activities, to build more confidence that there is complete tranparency and so that IAEA can determine that the program is completely civilian in nature, and there are no activites that could have military implications.


http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranIAEAreportNov15.pdf




I'm still not seeing a reason to bomb or go to war with them yet.

Aggressive diplomacy and inspections appears to be the prudent approach.

Fine. Email Bush: whitehouse.gov

 

[DeadCanDance]

Fine. Email Bush: whitehouse.gov

Why? BushCo. hates Mohamed ElBaradi and the IAEA. BushCo. lied about Iraq's alleged nuclear program, and Bush supporters were enraged that everything ElBaradei said about iraq's nuclear activities were true. And everything BushCo. said was wrong. BushCo doesn't care what IAEA says.

I think its more prudent to email Congress, to keep pressure on Bush to stop him from going to war with Iran. Unless and until an imminent threat, and evidence merits it.

 

[Annie]

Why? BushCo. hates Mohamed ElBaradi and the IAEA. BushCo. lied about Iraq's alleged nuclear program, and Bush supporters were enraged that everything ElBaradei said about iraq's nuclear activities were true. And everything BushCo. said was wrong. BushCo doesn't care what IAEA says.

I think its more prudent to email Congress, to keep pressure on Bush to stop him from going to war with Iran. Unless and until an imminent threat, and evidence merits it.

Fine email all the members of Congress. Try the SCOTUS. Whatever.

 

[Paulie]

Fine email all the members of Congress. Try the SCOTUS. Whatever.

Fine. Email Bush: whitehouse.gov

Do you realize that you make yourself sound like a little kid right now?

You have no refute for it, so you stomp your feet and get an attitude. What a juvenile way to include yourself in this thread.

 

[Annie]

Do you realize that you make yourself sound like a little kid right now?

You have no refute for it, so you stomp your feet and get an attitude. What a juvenile way to include yourself in this thread.

There is no refute for children, let them learn the hard way. Write, email, fax, phone, what have you.

 

[Paulie]

There is no refute for children, let them learn the hard way. Write, email, fax, phone, what have you.

Children. How ironic.

Anyway though, you admit that the people have no voice in our government anymore?

 

[Annie]

Children. How ironic.

Anyway though, you admit that the people have no voice in our government anymore?

LOL, in one of my frequent moments of cynicism, where?

 

[Paulie]

LOL, in one of my frequent moments of cynicism, where?

Kathianne come on you're KILLING me! You've been making a little more cognitive sense lately, so I've been haveing dialogue with you, but now you've been losing it again.

This is my question:

you admit that the people have no voice in our government anymore?

And this is your answer:

where?

WTF???

 

[Annie]

Kathianne come on you're KILLING me! You've been making a little more cognitive sense lately, so I've been haveing dialogue with you, but now you've been losing it again.

This is my question:



And this is your answer:



WTF???

Seriously sir, you do not make sense. Where I'm asking did I imply or say that people in the US have no input in our system? If I did it was inadvertant and would have to be in a pique at some stupidity. If you were to go back to posts regarding the votes on amnesty plans, you'd find I'd argue strongly the opposite.

 

[Paulie]

Seriously sir, you do not make sense. Where I'm asking did I imply or say that people in the US have no input in our system? If I did it was inadvertant and would have to be in a pique at some stupidity. If you were to go back to posts regarding the votes on amnesty plans, you'd find I'd argue strongly the opposite.

Kathianne, the way you structure your sentences makes it hard for people to understand your context sometimes. I'm not the first person to point that out.

Anyway, NOW I understand, since you clarified.

I made an assumption based on what you said about writing and emailing the government, and perhaps I was wrong. I'm willing to admit that.

I really don't want to be a part of hijacking this thread any farther, so let's either discuss the topic or move on.

What I'll say is, I think people are mis-interpreting the UN's reports about Iran, and taking them as reason to make yet another threatening and malignant move against them. The media certainly isn't helping matters any.

Why does the media not report about the POSITIVE aspects of the report? Even the so-called 'liberal media' is slowly helping to make a case for war via negative reporting about Iran. I don't see any less fear mongering on CNN than on Fox.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, the way you structure your sentences makes it hard for people to understand your context sometimes. I'm not the first person to point that out.

Anyway, NOW I understand, since you clarified.

I made an assumption based on what you said about writing and emailing the government, and perhaps I was wrong. I'm willing to admit that.

I really don't want to be a part of hijacking this thread any farther, so let's either discuss the topic or move on.

What I'll say is, I think people are mis-interpreting the UN's reports about Iran, and taking them as reason to make yet another threatening and malignant move against them. The media certainly isn't helping matters any.

Why does the media not report about the POSITIVE aspects of the report? Even the so-called 'liberal media' is slowly helping to make a case for war via negative reporting about Iran. I don't see any less fear mongering on CNN than on Fox.

From your post, I'll assume you think everyone, including the MSM is wrong, but you are right? Just trying to get the parameters here.

 

[Paulie]

From your post, I'll assume you think everyone, including the MSM is wrong, but you are right? Just trying to get the parameters here.

I think I just proved why assumptions are pointless in my last post.

Anyway though, I don't know if I'm right. I would say the MSM is wrong for not reporting in a manner that represents ALL possibilities. When I see their reports, I feel like I'm being sold a possibility of war the same way I was sold one for Iraq.

The question that needs to be asked is, is it worth another trillion or more dollars to take a shot in the dark? Can we even AFFORD that financially, militarily, politically, and emotionally? Are we not divided ENOUGH right now as a nation?

If we go into Iran, and they don't come out with evidence of nuclear weapons production, THEN WHAT? WHO'S NEXT? How many times are we going to keep going to war over ASSUMPTIONS?

 

[Annie]

I think I just proved why assumptions are pointless in my last post.

Anyway though, I don't know if I'm right. I would say the MSM is wrong for not reporting in a manner that represents ALL possibilities. When I see their reports, I feel like I'm being sold a possibility of war the same way I was sold one for Iraq.

The question that needs to be asked is, is it worth another trillion or more dollars to take a shot in the dark? Can we even AFFORD that financially, militarily, politically, and emotionally? Are we not divided ENOUGH right now as a nation?

If we go into Iran, and they don't come out with evidence of nuclear weapons production, THEN WHAT? WHO'S NEXT? How many times are we going to keep going to war over ASSUMPTIONS?

Nice comeback. Impressed. Now what follows? No media can cover all the possibilities before a war, if one is to occur. Even the DOD can only bring itself up to the start, then all bets are off.

As for costs, divisions, nuclear? Seems to me that you are way ahead of yourself with any of it, then it may come down to security, then no price too high, for without that, we cease to be a nation.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Kathianne, the way you structure your sentences makes it hard for people to understand your context sometimes. I'm not the first person to point that out.

Anyway, NOW I understand, since you clarified.

I made an assumption based on what you said about writing and emailing the government, and perhaps I was wrong. I'm willing to admit that.

I really don't want to be a part of hijacking this thread any farther, so let's either discuss the topic or move on.

What I'll say is, I think people are mis-interpreting the UN's reports about Iran, and taking them as reason to make yet another threatening and malignant move against them. The media certainly isn't helping matters any.

Why does the media not report about the POSITIVE aspects of the report? Even the so-called 'liberal media' is slowly helping to make a case for war via negative reporting about Iran. I don't see any less fear mongering on CNN than on Fox.

The american media duped us into the iraq war: Fox News, NY Times, Wash Post, nearly all of them.

I didn't get fooled into supporting the Iraq war (like many here did), because I relied on the independent experts, like IAEA, and reliable independent media, to report the whole truth and context about iraq.

That's why I think there's value in reading the actual IAEA report. Which isn't nearly as threatening, or war mongering, as some american corporate media have portrayed.

 

[Paulie]

Nice comeback. Impressed. Now what follows? No media can cover all the possibilities before a war, if one is to occur.

The media reports a certain way. They use the same marketing techniques that companies who sell products do. Facial expressions, tones of voice when speaking about a subject, subliminals in the background while they are speaking on TV...Then they mention WAR, and TERRORIST, and NUKES.

It's enough to make someone who was never exposed to the subject of Iran before, think we should go to war. They seem to leave out most of the debatable topics, or they avoid debate on them. At the end of the reports, it leaves you thinking that we'll probably have to go to war eventually, because Iran is "defiant" and "crazy" and Ahmadinejad has said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". Why have they never reported that he and others in the Iranian government have stated the REAL context of that was to mean the regime of Israel, and it didn't have literal significance of actual wiping off of any proverbial map.

Are they not allowed to clarify their statements? Are they automatically damned for everything they say?

As for costs, divisions, nuclear? Seems to me that you are way ahead of yourself with any of it, then it may come down to security, then no price too high, for without that, we cease to be a nation.

Iran MAYBE pursuing weapons is not going to make any nation cease to exist except IRAN. If they happen to somehow hoodwink the entire world, and sneak out a bomb, once they use it, they're fucked. And then life will go on.

If they managed to get it smuggled into the US, the fault will only lie on the US government for not having made getting it in as impossible to accomplish as they could.

12 million illegal immigrants, and more each day. It only takes ONE of them to be the bearers of a nuclear weapon to be used against us. IF they're getting in that easy, they could literally bring ANYTHING in with them. Why don't we start there FIRST.

Secure the borders. Then, and ONLY then, should Americans support taking the offensive elsewhere. It seems pointless otherwise.

 

[Annie]

The media reports a certain way. They use the same marketing techniques that companies who sell products do. Facial expressions, tones of voice when speaking about a subject, subliminals in the background while they are speaking on TV...Then they mention WAR, and TERRORIST, and NUKES.

It's enough to make someone who was never exposed to the subject of Iran before, think we should go to war. They seem to leave out most of the debatable topics, or they avoid debate on them. At the end of the reports, it leaves you thinking that we'll probably have to go to war eventually, because Iran is "defiant" and "crazy" and Ahmadinejad has said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". Why have they never reported that he and others in the Iranian government have stated the REAL context of that was to mean the regime of Israel, and it didn't have literal significance of actual wiping off of any proverbial map.

Are they not allowed to clarify their statements? Are they automatically damned for everything they say?



Iran MAYBE pursuing weapons is not going to make any nation cease to exist except IRAN. If they happen to somehow hoodwink the entire world, and sneak out a bomb, once they use it, they're fucked. And then life will go on.

If they managed to get it smuggled into the US, the fault will only lie on the US government for not having made it as impossible to accomplish as they could.

12 million illegal immigrants, and more each day. It only takes ONE of them to be the bearers of a nuclear weapon to be used against us. IF they're getting in that easy, they could literally bring ANYTHING in with them. Why don't we start there FIRST.

Secure the borders. Then, and ONLY then, should Americans support taking the offensive elsewhere. It seems pointless otherwise.

Assuming all you say is true. More interesting, let's assume the RP becomes president. Iran nukes Israel. The US you would say, under RP would respond proportionately?

 

[DeadCanDance]

The american media duped us into the iraq war: Fox News, NY Times, Wash Post, nearly all of them.

I didn't get fooled into supporting the Iraq war (like many here did), because I relied on the independent experts, like IAEA, and reliable independent media, to report the whole truth and context about iraq.

That's why I think there's value in reading the actual IAEA report. Which isn't nearly as threatening, or war mongering, as some american corporate media have portrayed.

For example, somebody on this board posted a NY Times article, and claimed that the IAEA explicity said iran was a year and a half away from a bomb

The agency’s report also confirmed for the first time that Iran has now crossed the major milestone of putting 3,000 centrifuges into operation, a tenfold increase from just a year ago. In theory, that means that Iran could produce enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon within a year to 18 months...

From what I could tell, nowhere in the actual IAEA report does it make that statment. I couldn't find it.

I think what happened is that the NY times inserted their own comment, about how in theory a cascade of 3000 centrifuges could theoretically, and in a best case scenario, produce weapons grade uranium in 18 months.


But, nowhere does IAEA make that statement. In fact, IAEA hasn't even found evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.

And I simply can't forget, how complicit the NY Times was in selling the Iraq war on faulty info and lies.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Assuming all you say is true. More interesting, let's assume the RP becomes president. Iran nukes Israel. The US you would say, under RP would respond proportionately?

Israel has their OWN impressive nuclear force. If Iran ever used a bomb on them, israel would respond, and Iran would cease to exist.

Why would you suggest that we retaliate on behalf of israel? Israel is quite capable of defending itself, and sending Iran back to the stone age.

 

[Paulie]

Assuming all you say is true. More interesting, let's assume the RP becomes president. Iran nukes Israel. The US you would say, under RP would respond proportionately?

I'm trying to figure out how Iran would possibly pull of projecting a nuclear weapon towards Israel, and accomplishing a strike without it being shot out of the sky. They have all the same missile defense systems that we do. And I'm not certain about this, but I'd bet that their borders are probably a HELL of a lot more secure than ours are.

In the event that Israel did somehow get directly attacked by Iran, why should we be required to do ANYTHING? Are we sqeezing the economic life out of the people of Iran right now to protect ISRAEL? Even Bush himself said Israel has a right to defend itself.

We need to be securing our borders. After 9/11, how could anyone not AGREE with that???