Saturday, February 25, 2012

‘Major Differences’ with Iran on Nuclear Program – IAEA

The IAEA today reported of “major differences” with Iran over the existence of a possible nuclear weapons program in the country.

“An intensive discussion was held on the structured approach to the clarification of all outstanding issues related to Iran's nuclear program,” said IAEA in a report sent to its members late Friday. “No agreement was reached between Iran and the Agency, as major differences existed.”

“The agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," IAEA said [AFP. 25 February].

A high-ranking IAEA team led by Herman Nackaerts returned from a two-day visit to Tehran earlier this week, the team’s second visit to Iran this month.

Senior IAEA officials have told AFP that Iran particularly prevented a visit by the IAEA team to Parchin military base near Tehran where work on aspects of a weapon program was believed to be underway.

Meanwhile, Iran’s envoy to IAEA said in Tehran that the two sides could not agree on the reasons for a visit by IAEA team to the Parchin site.

“There was no agreement, and talks must continue until there is one,” said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the Iranian envoy.

The IAEA also said that Iran had tripled its capacity to enrich uranium to 20-percent purities since its last report in November. Iran was now producing around 14 kilograms of 20-percent uranium per month, with around 105 kilograms already stockpiled.

The IAEA said Iran also failed to explain properly what happened to around 20 kilograms of uranium metal that the agency says are unaccounted for and which it suspects could have been used in weapons work.

Source: AFP


Anonymous said...

The best news was that now Hamas is against Assad (and arguably Iran); now Iran can have a clean break with the palestinian issue - something that iranian people have been waiting for too long ...

Anonymous said...

While Iranian people suffered rising inflation and declining economy, regime in Tehran sent large amount of money and resources to Hamas and Hezbollah... now both proxy groups realize regime may be destroyed so they are distancing themselves as fast as possible... Nasrallah knows that He's on the short list. This time,. Israel will not fight with restraint and proportional force. The real loser here will be the Iranian people that allowed themselves to be herded like cattle by the regime.

Anonymous said...

It makes one scratch their head. What ElBaradei dismissed as fabrications, Amano takes seriously.

And while the IAEA highlights these questionable claims, American intelligence agencies continue to assert there is no present nuclear weapons program in Iran.

So it appears there's tension and related rising oil cost where there shouldn't be.

Anonymous said...

>"And while the IAEA highlights these questionable claims, American intelligence agencies continue to assert there is no present nuclear weapons program in Iran."<

American intel agencies have never made such a claim... rather, the accepted standard to date has been actual detonation of a device, so Tehran is pushing to a new level the dual track scheme... with plausible deniability- The entire world's intel networks know that Tehran is pushing to the threshold of breakout capacity- and then plans to sit, as if resting ones finger next to the launch button- at that point, "almost" no operation exists to contain that strategic position. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not going back in.

Second, the strategic ambiguity will lead to nuclear program proliferation throughout region... and later into North and Central Africa... this is much more than an Iran issue- the world will not accept any new weapons program of that nature. Period.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:04:

Here the consensus view of 16 American intelligence agencies in '07 that is continued in the '11 reports:

"Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,
Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge
with high confidence that the halt lasted at least
several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate
confidence that the halt to those activities
represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons
program.) Assess with moderate confidence
Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know
whether it currently intends to develop nuclear
weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt
was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from
exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear
work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence
that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the
option to develop nuclear weapons."

We Americans possess the best means of surveillance in the world. If Iran had a nuclear weapons program or diverted nuclear material, we would no of it. But there's no evidence of that.

And by the way, those questionable claims being perpetuated by the IAEA in the form of "outstanding issues", most are nearly ten years old and not current.

Anonymous said...

re Anon 3:47 PM

Due to inability of moving anything substantively forward, default mode is prevailing NIE, and as you noted suggests essentially - no smoking gun

I am being repetitive but it is worth noting, this is exactly the cornerstone upon which a plausibly deniable operation is built,.,, if attacked, and no incriminating evidence is recovered (for ex. no WMD Iraq) then attacker suffers on world stage.

By pushing dual track to the edge, or as one diplomat stated: "being one screwdriver away from assembly" the "deniable" cover functions... and given that "certain elements" shot the wad on Iraq, the public mindshare is now biased toward requiring an abundance of proof. Again this play to Tehran...

I get it, and there is much more that is need to know... I am not "in Israel's corner" per se but rather see (or imagine) larger implications from allowing Tehran to win this... other major players are involved and operations/goals of a profound nature.

At present however, I remain with the "assumption" that [this] primarily is framed as Israel's move... the "distancing" and pre event clarification of policy via media supports this narrative... you go, and we'll be nearby... but we're NOT going to be at the head of the stack when the door is blown down.

attack on Iran said...

There were major differences between IAEA and Iran. However, the same day that IAEA report came out, there was an article in the NY Times saying that US intelligence agencies felt that Iran had not yet decided to go for a bomb and in fact had not restarted a missile program from 2003 necessary to carry a weapon. Odd this US view came out on the same day as IAEA report - I think its not a coincidence.

Anonymous said...

re 1:19 AM

NY Times looking like project Mockingbird ver 2.0 psyop.

a "this was not our idea" from govt must be convincing.

... there is much more at work here.