This weblog has been updated on regular bases at least few times a month

Archive for May, 2010

Iran calls for immediate disarmament of nuclear states

Posted by alanmirs on May 30, 2010

to frontpage






» International


May 27, 2010

Iran calls for immediate disarmament of nuclear


Share  ·  

print  ·  

T+  ·   T-

Iran on Thursday urged all countries to take serious
steps to dismantle all nuclear weapons and called for setting a deadline
in this regard by the international community.

believe that nuclear disarmament and non—proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) are a necessity in today’s world. So a time limit
is needed to be set for the elimination of nuclear weapons and this
issue has to be incorporated in the final declaration of the Nuclear
Non—proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference,” Mohammad Khazaee, Iran’s
ambassador to the UN, was quoted as saying by Fars news agency.

Mr. Khazaee said Iran, as one of the first countries to
have signed the NPT and which floated the idea of a nuke—free Middle
East in 1974, supports global denuclearisation as well as free access to
peaceful nuclear technology.

He said Iran calls for
removal of all WMD from across the globe.

The UN
General Assembly had approved a draft resolution proposed by Iran on
nuclear disarmament in October 2009, amid strong opposition by the US,
Britain, France, Israel.

The resolution ratified in
the first committee of the UN General Assembly calls on all countries to
annihilate their nuclear weapons under the supervision of international
bodies. It also urged Israel to join the NPT and allow the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear

More than 100 countries, including
non—nuclear members of the Non—Aligned Movement (NAM), voted for the

Tehran also held a conference on nuclear
disarmament in April, which was attended by foreign ministers and
nuclear experts from 60 countries.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on Iran calls for immediate disarmament of nuclear states

Israel was the big loser in the nuclear review conference in New York – and Iran the big winner.

Posted by alanmirs on May 29, 2010

Iran narrowly wins UN nuclear battle

Page last updated at 13:23 GMT, Saturday, 29
May 2010 14:23 UK

By Paul
World affairs correspondent, BBC
News website
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may see the meeting as a diplomatic

Israel was the big loser in the nuclear review conference
in New York – and Iran the big winner.

The cause of nuclear non-proliferation was haltingly served in that the
conference did reach a consensus, unlike the last time, and a number of
watered-down measures were agreed to seek ways of strengthening the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But overall, there was not the decisive
strengthening that some states wanted.

Instead, governments rallied round one objective – the concept of a nuclear
weapons-free zone in the Middle East. This was first called for 15 years ago but
until now neglected.

To its annoyance, Israel found that the US did not block a proposal to hold a
one-off conference in 2012 on setting up such a zone. In addition Israel was
named for not being a party to the treaty and for not having its nuclear
activities under international inspection. Being named like this is always
regarded as a diplomatic defeat.

It will produce further soul-searching about the relationship between Israel
and the US administration of President Barack Obama, which has often been tense
and which will now be more so. Israel has already denounced the agreement as

Mr Obama came out with a statement afterwards that spoke of the US being
"strongly opposed" to efforts to "single out Israel" but he did not use the veto
available to him.

Whether the conference will be held is debatable (conditions are already
being attached) and whether it will do anything practical is doubtful. Israel
opposes any nuclear-free zone until there is a comprehensive peace. So does the

Iran prepared

Arab countries, led skilfully by Egypt, managed to manoeuvre the US into
agreeing. Washington did not want to be blamed for wrecking the conference. It
would have undone much of the goodwill that Mr Obama has engendered over the
past year through his efforts to reduce the American stockpile of nuclear
weapons and to reconfigure US nuclear policy.

Anti-nuclear protesters in New York The UN’s nuclear deliberations typically draw anti-nuclear

On the other hand, Iran was not named, despite being in violation of
instructions both from the IAEA, which administers the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty, and the Security Council that it should suspend the enrichment of
uranium. Instead there were a couple of references to countries not being in
compliance and since Iran is the only such state, Iran is meant. But it is not
named. Iran would have blocked the necessary consensus if it had been.

It was ready to stop a consensus. The US was not.

"It is good that there was an outcome," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the
International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

"It restores the consensus about the importance of the NPT, which had been
unravelling. The NPT was in danger and some new health and vitality has been put
back into it.

"However it doesn’t move the ball forward or strengthen the NPT and is
therefore a missed opportunity."

One example is that the US had pressed for countries leaving the NPT (as they
can with three months’ notice and as North Korea did) to face sanctions. This
was not adopted, but at least it was stated that North Korea would not be
recognised as a nuclear-weapons state, which will please South Korea.

Another is that there is not much immediate hope of getting the stronger
inspections of nuclear plants that the US wanted. If no such action is
forthcoming, the US attitude towards further disarmament could well be affected.

Nor, from the opposite side, was there agreement to set a deadline or even a
target for nuclear-weapons states to negotiate their weapons away. Some
non-aligned countries had wanted sometime after 2025 as the target. There is no
date in the document. Instead there is language pressing for progress. Indeed,
there has been some progress over the past year, with a new agreement between
Russia and the United State as an example.

The next NPT review conference is in 2015.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on Israel was the big loser in the nuclear review conference in New York – and Iran the big winner.

189 Nations Reaffirm Goal of Ban on Nuclear Weapons

Posted by alanmirs on May 29, 2010

189 Nations Reaffirm Goal of Ban on Nuclear

Published: May 28, 2010

UNITED NATIONS — Hard-fought negotiations over the future of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty ended here on Friday with 189 nations reaffirming their
commitment to eliminating all nuclear
and setting a new 2012 deadline for holding a regional conference to
eliminate unconventional weapons from the Middle East.

The complicated 28-page final document from the treaty review conference
calls for the United
secretary general, along with the United States, Russia and Britain,
to appoint a facilitator and consult with the countries of the Middle East
convening the conference.

That goal was considered the landmark achievement of the negotiations, aside
from reaffirming the basic premise of the treaty. Review conferences are held
every five years and the last one, in 2005, ended in disarray, the gap between
states with nuclear weapons and those without too wide to bridge.

Given the current tense realities in the Middle East, senior government
officials and diplomats on all sides conceded that even calling such a
conference, much less accomplishing any of its goals, remained a distant

“People are not going to come to a disarmament conference voluntarily if they
are at war with their neighbors,” said Ellen O. Tauscher, the under secretary of
state for arms control and international security affairs, who led the American
delegation. Washington’s support for such a conference does not supersede the
longstanding United States policy that disarmament requires a comprehensive
peace in the region first, she said.

But in 1995 Arab states accepted the indefinite extension of the
nonproliferation treaty, in exchange for a commitment for such a Middle East
conference. Since there had been no movement on the issue for 15 years,
Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt had made it clear from the outset that
fellow Arab states and the nonaligned movement demanded some concrete steps to
support the document this year.

Tensions over the content of the final document after a month of negotiations
went down to the wire, with diplomats portraying the last few days as a poker
game with the United States and Iran
each trying to call the other’s bluff so that one might be blamed for the
failure of the conference to reach consensus.

In the end, the United States accepted one reference to Israel
in the final document, in the section on the Middle East, which basically
repeats a previously stated position that Israel should join the 40-year-old
nonproliferation treaty. The Israeli Mission to the United Nations would not
comment on the outcome. The Israeli government has never confirmed the
widespread consensus that it holds at least 100 nuclear missiles.

The document also emphasizes the need for countries to respect treaty
guidelines for keeping their nuclear programs open to international inspection
and suffering the consequences if they do not. Such measures are likely to
strengthen the Security Council’s stand in its current confrontation with Iran
over possible new sanctions because of suspicions that it is trying to develop
nuclear weapons, which Tehran vehemently denies.

“My guess is that language caused the Iranians pretty significant heartburn
even though they decided to go along with it,” said Gary Samore, the White House
coordinator for unconventional weapons.

Much of Friday was spent waiting to hear if Iran would accept the final
document. Diplomats said that the conference chairman, Libran N. Cabactulan of
the Philippines, even called the leaders of Brazil and Turkey, temporary
Security Council members who have been trumpeting their ability to reach a
compromise with Iran, to prevail on Tehran not to foil the agreement.

In a speech after the document was adopted, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the Iranian
envoy, listed at least nine ways in which Iran thought the document was weak. A
proposed 2025 deadline for the elimination of all nuclear weapons had been
scuttled by the nuclear weapons states, he noted, as had a proposal for a
legally binding commitment from states with nuclear weapons not to use them
against those without.

“It is of course far from our expectations, but at the same time it is a step
forward toward our goal of disarmament,” Mr. Soltanieh told reporters. Iran had
also pushed for more stringent language demanding that Israel join the
nonproliferation treaty.

Earlier in the week, Vice President Joseph
R. Biden Jr.
and Gen. James
L. Jones
, the national security adviser, met with Arab ambassadors at the
White House to work out compromise Middle East language. The United States
accepted dropping direct linkage between a comprehensive Middle East peace and
the regional denuclearizing conference, Arab diplomats said, as well as the one
reference to Israel.

The United States repeatedly said Friday that it objected to the language
singling out Israel, but accepted it because consensus on the overall document
underscored President
’s commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons.

“There is no problem with the language, but having that language in the
Mideast section we think sends a really negative political signal,” Mr. Samore
said. “It suggests the conference will be designed to single out Israel.” That
would decrease the likelihood of such a conference ever happening, he said,
which is why the United States insisted in retaining a role as a sponsor.

Given that all 189 states that have signed the nonproliferation treaty had to
agree to the wording, including 64 separate ways to move forward, all the major
players found flaws in the outcome. It meant many steps had to be watered down.

Although the document singles out North Korea by name, for example, saying
its nuclear program constitutes a threat to “peace and security,” it was not as
strong as the condemnation initially proposed.

Aside from Israel, the document also calls on India and Pakistan, both
holding nuclear weapons but not nonproliferation treaty members, to join it.

While rejecting a deadline, for the first time the main five nuclear weapons
states accepted vague language referring to a new, stronger international
convention on eliminating nuclear weapons, and the idea of a “timeline” was

Despite differences over the pace of disarmament and proliferation concerns,
the document breathes new life into a treaty seen as under threat, analysts
said. “That is the positive, there is much more attention on future action and
new benchmarks,” said Prof. William C. Potter, the director of the center for
nonproliferation at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

A version of this article appeared in print on May 29,
2010, on

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on 189 Nations Reaffirm Goal of Ban on Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear treaty conference backs steps to disarm

Posted by alanmirs on May 29, 2010

Nuclear treaty conference backs steps to disarm

Nuclear treaty conference backs steps to disarm

By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent © 2010 The Associated

May 28, 2010, 11:27PM

Hamed Malekpour AP

In this photo released by the semi-official Iranian Fars News Agency, Iranian
President Ahmadinejad speaks to a public gathering in the city of Kerman, about
625 miles (1040 kilometers) southeast of the capital Tehran, Iran, Wednesday,
May 26, 2010. Iran’s president on Wednesday urged Barack Obama to accept a
nuclear fuel swap deal, warning the U.S. leader will miss a historic opportunity
for improved cooperation from Tehran if the offer is rejected. (AP Photo/Fars
News Agency, Hamed Malekpour)

UNITED NATIONS — The 189 member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty on Friday adopted a detailed plan of small steps down a long road toward
nuclear disarmament, including a sharply debated proposal to move toward banning
doomsday arms from the Middle East.

The 28-page final declaration was approved by consensus on the last day of
the monthlong conference, convened every five years to review and advance the
objectives of the 40-year-old NPT.

Under its action plan, the five recognized nuclear-weapon states — the United
States, Russia, Britain, France and China — commit to speed up arms reductions,
take other steps to diminish the importance of atomic weapons, and report back
on progress by 2014.

The final document also calls for convening a conference in 2012 "on the
establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other
weapons of mass destruction."

This Arab idea of a WMD-free zone is designed to pressure Israel to give up
its undeclared nuclear arsenal. Despite the decision here, U.S. officials
questioned whether Israel could be persuaded to attend the conference.

U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said in a statement late
Friday that the U.S. has "serious reservations" about the conference and
"deplores" the decision to single out Israel in the Mideast section of the
document. As a cosponsor of the 2012 conference, he said the United States will
ensure that it will only takes place "if and when all countries feel confident
that they can attend."

"Because of (the) gratuitous way that Israel has been singled out, the
prospect for a conference in 2012 that involves all key states in the region is
now in doubt," Jones said.

Iran and Syria had dissented loudly on various points in the final hours, but
no objections were raised in the concluding session. After the declaration’s
approval, Iran’s chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh joined with the others in
hearty applause beneath the U.N. General Assembly hall’s soaring dome.

"All eyes the world over are watching us," the conference president, Libran
Cabactulan of the Philippines, said before gaveling the final document into the

The decision was "an important step forward towards the realization of the
goals and objectives of the treaty," Egypt’s Maged Abedelaziz said afterward,
speaking for the 118-nation Nonaligned Movement of mainly developing

"The final document this conference adopted today advances President Obama’s
vision" of a world without nuclear weapons, U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen
Tauscher told the assembled delegates.

Under the 1970 nonproliferation treaty, nations without nuclear weapons
committed not to acquire them; those with them committed to move toward their
elimination; and all endorsed everyone’s right to develop peaceful nuclear

The last NPT conference, in 2005, failed to adopt a consensus declaration, in
part because U.S. President George W. Bush had withdrawn U.S. backing for such
nonproliferation steps as ratifying the treaty banning all nuclear tests.
President Barack Obama’s support for an array of arms-control measures improved
the cooperative atmosphere at the 2010 conference.

For the first time at an NPT review, the final declaration laid out complex
action plans for all three of the treaty’s "pillars" — nonproliferation,
disarmament and peaceful nuclear energy.

The five recognized weapons states did manage to strip earlier drafts of
specific timelines for disarmament negotiations, such as a proposal that they
consult among themselves on how to disarm and report back to the 2015
conference, after which a high-level meeting would convene to negotiate a
"roadmap" for abolishing nuclear weapons.

But in the final draft the five weapons states committed to "accelerate
concrete progress" toward reducing their atomic weaponry, and to report on
progress in 2014 in preparation for the 2015 NPT review session.

The document calls on them also to reduce the role of nuclear arms in their
military doctrines and consider downgrading the alert status of weapons systems,
and it held out the possibility of negotiations on a global treaty abolishing
nuclear arms.

Cuba expressed the disappointment of many non-nuclear-weapon states here that
the nuclear powers did not accept a firmer timetable, saying it had done "all we
could to set a timetable with 2025 as the deadline for the total elimination of
nuclear weapons."

The disarmament action plan also inevitably leaves a major gap, since it
doesn’t obligate four nations that are not members of the treaty — India,
Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, all of which have or are suspected of having
nuclear arsenals.

On the Middle East, Arab states and Israel’s allies had been at odds over
wording in the plan to convene a conference in 2012 to begin a process to turn
the region into a zone free of nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons.

This Arab proposal for a WMD-free zone, to pressure Israel to give up its
undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads, was endorsed by the 1995 NPT
conference but never acted on.

Israel has long said a full Arab-Israeli peace must precede such weapons
bans. But at this conference the U.S., Israel’s chief supporter, said it
welcomed "practical measures" leading toward the goal of a nuke-free zone, and
U.S. diplomats discussed possibilities with Israel.

A sticking point had been a passage naming Israel, reaffirming "the
importance of Israel’s accession to the NPT," a move that would require it to
destroy its arsenal.

Iran demanded that this NPT session insist Israel join the treaty before a
2012 conference. Egypt’s Abdelaziz told reporters the Arab position was softer —
that Israel’s accession to the treaty would come as "part of the process" begun
in 2012.

Although the Israelis apparently had acquiesced to U.S. urging that they take
part in such a 2012 discussion, they objected to participating under terms in
which they were the only nation mentioned in this way, diplomats said.

In the end, the singling out of Israel remained in the text, and Tauscher
said that would "seriously jeopardize" U.S. efforts to persuade the Israelis to
attend 2012 talks.

Establishment of a verifiable Mideast nuclear weapons-free zone should help
allay international concerns about whether Iran’s ambitious nuclear program is
aimed at building bombs, something Tehran denies. The Iranians have long
expressed support for a nuke-free Mideast.

Besides Israel’s attendance, other important details of a 2012 Mideast
conference remain to be worked out, such as whether the talks are meant as the
start of formal negotiations on a treaty.

Iran had loomed as a potential spoiler, blocking consensus, at this
conference. Facing possible new U.N. sanctions because of its nuclear program,
the Iranians had sought to turn the spotlight instead on the big nuclear powers,
demanding the final document call for speedier disarmament moves.

On the other hand, the final document did not single Iran out by name as a
member nation that has been found to be in noncompliance with U.N. nuclear
safeguards agreements.

Although the Iranians did not block final agreement, Tauscher complained, "We
note that Iran has done nothing to enhance the international community’s
confidence in it by its performance in this review conference."

Iran’s Soltanieh said the Americans should "think twice" before making such
statements, that "this was not the right reaction to a positive response,
positive measure by our delegation joining the consensus."

The "limited measures" of the final document were "a step forward" toward
global disarmament, he said.


AP correspondent Edith M. Lederer contributed to this report

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on Nuclear treaty conference backs steps to disarm

Giving Diplomacy a Chance

Posted by alanmirs on May 28, 2010

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor

Giving Diplomacy
a Chance

Published: May 26, 2010

The international community, including Turkey and Brazil, is in staunch
opposition to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We are also
dedicated to achieving a world without nuclear weapons. In the case of the
Iranian nuclear program, we firmly believe that a process of result-oriented
negotiation is needed to avoid a slide toward conflict.

Lack of trust and confidence has been hindering positive movement on this
issue, which is critical for regional security and prosperity. We are
emboldened, however, by what has been achieved in Tehran only days ago.

Since October 2009, the focus has been on a deal to provide fuel to the
Tehran Research Reactor in exchange for the removal of 1,200 kilograms of
low-enriched uranium from Iran’s stocks. As proposed by the International Atomic
Energy Agency, this deal would be a confidence-building measure as well as a
humanitarian requirement in view of the research reactor’s role in the diagnosis
and treatment of almost a million patients in Iran.

The deal fell apart at the end of last year amid mutual suspicion. In
consultation with the United States and other allies, Turkey and Brazil
intervened to broker a new accord. The joint declaration that was signed by
Turkey, Brazil and Iran in Tehran on May 17 reflected a major breakthrough.

Accordingly, Iran agreed to remove from its territory 1,200 kilograms of
low-enriched uranium — the exact amount specified by the I.A.E.A. proposal —
within one month once the appropriate arrangements are concluded. The
low-enriched uranium would be deposited in Turkey in one batch. The deposit will
be made at the beginning of the process before any amount of nuclear fuel is
delivered to Iran. The Tehran declaration also states that the nuclear fuel
exchange will create a positive and constructive atmosphere, thus presenting an
opportunity for a forward-looking process. Thus, it reopens the prospect of
broader negotiations with Iran in any place, including Turkey and Brazil.

This joint declaration is not only the result of our dedicated work but also
the culmination of the engagement strategy put in place by President Obama and
followed by the other P5+1 countries — Russia, China, France, Britain and
Germany — as part of a vision of enhanced and effective multilateral
cooperation. Definitive action must now be taken to make sure that there is a
sustained and working engagement track. There is only one viable solution to
disagreements with Iran over its nuclear program, and that is a negotiated
diplomatic solution.

Some critics of the Tehran declaration refer to the fact that it does not
treat all problems surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. This was never the
purpose of the original agreement. But we believe that the declaration helps to
address the entire issue by providing essential confidence-building, the key
missing component thus far. It creates the long-sought opportunity to address
the issues through dialogue and engagement. The Tehran declaration needs to be
given the opportunity to work. Threats and rhetorical statements need to be
avoided. As was clear during the negotiations of the declaration, fulfillment of
all pledges and commitments is essential for the continued engagement of all
parties involved, including Brazil and Turkey.

In the presence of deep mutual mistrust there will always be those who
display skepticism about the feasibility of any negotiated outcome. But there is
now sufficient substance to give negotiations a chance. Missing it may well be
regretted for generations to come.

Ahmet Davutoglu and Celso Amorim are foreign ministers, respectively, of
Turkey and Brazil.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on Giving Diplomacy a Chance

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LETTER TO PRESIDENT LULA ON THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR ISSUE THE WHITE HOUSE Washington April 20, 2010 His Excellency Luiz Inلcio Lula da Silva President of the Federative Republic of Brazil Brasيlia Dear Mr. President: I want to than

Posted by alanmirs on May 28, 2010




April 20, 2010


Luiz Inلcio
Lula da Silva

of the Federative Republic of Brazil


Dear Mr. President:

I want to thank you for our meeting with Turkish
Prime Minister Erdogan during the Nuclear Security Summit. We spent some time
focused on Iran, the issue of the provision of nuclear fuel for the Tehran
Research Reactor (TRR), and the intent of Brazil and Turkey to work toward
finding an acceptable solution. I promised to respond in detail to your ideas. I
have carefully considered our discussion, and I would like to offer a detailed
explanation of my perspective and suggest a way ahead.

I agree with you that the TRR is an opportunity
to pave the way for a broader dialogue in dealing with the more fundamental
concerns of the international community regarding Iran’s overall nuclear program
From the beginning, I have viewed Iran’ s request as a clear and tangible
opportunity to begin to build mutual trust and confidence, and thereby create
time and space for a constructive diplomatic process That is why the United
States so strongly supported the proposal put forth by former International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General EIBaradei.

The IAEA’s proposal was crafted to be fair and
balanced, and for both sides to gain trust and confidence. For us, Iran’s
agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the
country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially
reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile. I want to underscore that this element is of
fundamental importance for the United States. For Iran, it would receive the
nuclear fuel requested to ensure continued operation of the TRR to produce
needed medical isotopes and, by using its own material, Iran would begin to
demonstrate peaceful nuclear intent. Notwithstanding Iran’s continuing defiance
of five United Nations Security Council resolutions mandating that it cease its
enrichment of uranium, we were prepared to support and facilitate action on a
proposal that would provide Iran nuclear fuel using uranium enriched by Iran — a
demonstration of our willingness to be creative in pursuing a way to build
mutual confidence.

During the course of the consultations, we also
recognized Iran’s desire for assurances. As a result, my team focused on
ensuring that the lAEA’s proposal contained several built-in measures, including
a U.S. national declaration of support, to send a clear signal from my
government of our willingness to become a direct signatory and potentially even
play a more direct role in the fuel production process, a central role for
Russia, and the IAEA’s assumption of full custody of the nuclear material
throughout the fuel production process. In effect, the IAEA’s proposal offered
Iran significant and substantial assurances and commitments from the IAEA, the
United States, and Russia. Dr. EI Baradei stated publicly last year that the
United States would be assuming the vast majority of the risk in the IAEA’s

As we discussed, Iran appears to be pursuing a
strategy that is designed to create the impression of flexibility without
agreeing to actions that can begin to build mutual trust and confidence. We have
observed Iran convey hints of flexibility to you and others, but formally
reiterate an unacceptable position through official channels to the IAEA. Iran
has continued to reject the IAEA’s proposal and insist that Iran retain its
low-enriched uranium on its territory until delivery of nuclear fuel. This is
the position that Iran formally conveyed to the IABA in January 2010 and again
in February.

We understand from you, Turkey and others that
Iran continues to propose that Iran would retain its LEU on its territory until
there is a simultaneous exchange of its LEU for nuclear fuel. As General Jones
noted during our meeting, it will require one year for any amount of nuclear
fuel to be produced. Thus, the confidence-building strength of the IAEA’s
proposal would be completely eliminated for the United States and several risks
would emerge. First, Iran would be able to continue to stockpile LEU throughout
this time, which would enable them to acquire an LEU stockpile equivalent to the
amount needed for two or three nuclear weapons n a year’ s time. Second, there
would be no guarantee that Iran would ultimately agree to the final exchange.
Third, IAEA "custody" of lran’s LEU inside of Iran would provide us no
measurable improvement over the current situation, and the IAEA cannot prevent
Iran from re-assuming control of its uranium at any time.

There is a potentially important compromise that
has already been offered. Last November, the IAEA conveyed to Iran our offer to
allow Iran to ship its 1,200 kg of LEU to a third country — specifically Turkey
— at the outset of the process·to be held "in escrow" as a guarantee during the
fuel production process that Iran would get back its uranium if we failed to
deliver the fuel. Iran has never pursued the "escrow" compromise and has
provided no credible explanation for its rejection. I believe that this raises
real questions about Iran’s nuclear intentions, if Iran is unwilling to accept
an offer to demonstrate that its LEU is for peaceful, civilian purposes. I would
urge Brazil to impress upon Iran the opportunity presented by this offer to
"escrow" its uranium in Turkey while the nuclear fuel is being

Throughout this process, instead of building
confidence Iran has undermined confidence in the way it has approached this
opportunity. That is why I question whether Iran is prepared to engage Brazil in
good faith, and why I cautioned you during our meeting. To begin a constructive
diplomatic process, Iran has to convey to the IAEA a constructive commitment to
engagement through official channels — something it has failed to do. Meanwhile,
we will pursue sanctions on the timeline that I have outlined. I have also made
clear that I will leave the door open to engagement with Iran. As you know, Iran
has thus far failed to accept my offer of comprehensive and unconditional

I look forward to the next opportunity to see you
and discuss these issues as we consider the challenge of Iran’s nuclear program
to the security of the international community, including in the U.N. Security


Barack Obama





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LETTER TO PRESIDENT LULA ON THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR ISSUE THE WHITE HOUSE Washington April 20, 2010 His Excellency Luiz Inلcio Lula da Silva President of the Federative Republic of Brazil Brasيlia Dear Mr. President: I want to than

Brazils Iran Deal Alibi: Obama Said It Was Okay

Posted by alanmirs on May 28, 2010

Brazils Iran Deal Alibi: Obama Said It Was Okay
Contributed by Eyes For You
Friday, May 28, 2010 8:57

stories from this contributor

This story has been viewed 26 times
(26 times in
the past 24 hours, 25 times in the past hour)

1 person on this page right now

There has been no shortage of foreign-policy disasters in the first
year and a half of Barack Obama’s presidency, but nothing has
illustrated the administration’s appalling lack of skill in diplomacy
more than its amateurish efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program. The
latest indication of incompetence was illustrated when the government of
Brazil released the full text of a three-page letter sent by Obama to
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in April, in which the American
commander in chief gave the Brazilian leader the green light to pursue
an agreement in which Iran would transfer part of its stockpile of
enriched uranium to Turkey. This startling piece of news was buried
toward the bottom of a New York Times report on the latest developments in Iranian
diplomacy. The article devoted most of its space to new tensions between
Tehran and Moscow

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on Brazils Iran Deal Alibi: Obama Said It Was Okay

The Canadian Charger Magazine honours another 9/11 conspiracy theorist Read more:

Posted by alanmirs on May 27, 2010

The Canadian Charger Magazine honours another 9/11
conspiracy theorist

By Jonathan
May 26, 2010 – 11:19

The Canadian Charger Magazine — the brainchild of the folks who brought you
the Canadian Islamic Congress — is hosting a June 5 fundraising
at the Islamic Center of York Region. The guest speaker? 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alan Hart.

Here’s how 9/11 Truther Kevin Barrett recently described his interview with Hart:

Hart, who got to know Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir while serving as a
Security Council-briefed Mideast peace negotiator, said that he has been assured
by a top-level demolitions/engineering expert who wishes to remain anonymous
that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled
demolitions, not plane crashes and fires. (For the names of more than 1000
experts willing to go on the record with the same opinion, see During the
hour-long interview, Hart discussed Israel’s record of engaging in outrageous
attacks on friend and foe alike, and spreading even more outrageous lies to
cover them up. (Around the midpoint of the show he explained the real reason
Israel attacked the U.S.S.
in 1967.)  Regarding 9/11, Hart suggested that while there may have
been some original terrorist plot conceived by fellow-travelers of Osama Bin
Laden, the Israeli Mossad, with its near-total penetration of Middle Eastern
governments and terrorist groups alike, would have quickly detected and hijacked
the operation to its own ends, orchestrating a spectacularly successful attack
on America designed to be blamed on its Arab and Muslim enemies. Hart added that
the Mossad operation that became 9/11 would have been aided and abetted by
certain corrupt American leaders. Sounding a chilling note, Hard added that the
U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack,
perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during
the “loose
nukes” rogue operation
of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a
U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of
war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the
opportunity presents itself.

Read more:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on The Canadian Charger Magazine honours another 9/11 conspiracy theorist Read more:

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons

Posted by alanmirs on May 26, 2010

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons

Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official
evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons


Wed, May 26, 2010 Sivan 13, 5770


  • 09:02

    PA President Abbas: Second intifada was one of our greatest
    mistakes (Army Radio)
  • 08:53

    Two bombs explode in quick succession south of Bangkok; 2
    killed, 22 wounded (Reuters)
  • 08:52

    Two bombs explode in quick succession south of Bangkok; 2
    killed, 22 wounded (Reuters)
  • 08:44

    Price of oil rises above $69 a barrel as U.S. gasoline
    supplies drop (AP)
  • 08:39

    Petah Tikva man, 40, arrested on suspicion of having raped
    6-year-old girl (Ch. 10)
  • 08:23

    Siren indicating simulated missile attack to sound across
    Israel at 11 A.M. (Haaretz)
  • 08:08

    One person in serious condition following traffic accident
    near Arad (Haaretz)
  • 07:50

    Palestinians: 22 people wounded in IAF strike on Gaza
    overnight (Haaretz)
  • 06:41

    IDF arrests 12 wanted Palestinians in West Bank overnight
    (Ch. 10)
  • 05:49

    Palestinians: 15 wounded in Israeli strike on Gaza
    overnight (AP)
  • 04:48

    PMO pays $300,000 more so Netanyahu can sleep en route to
    Canada (Haaretz)
  • 03:53

    Palestinians to U.S.: No talks on piecemeal gestures from
    Israel (Haaretz)
  • 02:46

    Man seriously wounded when truck overturns on road near
    Ariel (Ch. 10)
  • 01:27

    Report: Israeli warplanes respond to rocket attacks, strike
    on Gaza (DPA)
  • 23:39

    Report: Nuclear conference to ignore Iran, urge Israel to
    sign NPT (Reuters)

Breaking News

  • Published 23:31 25.05.10
  • Latest update 23:31 25.05.10

Report: Nuclear forum to ignore
Iran, urge Israel to sign NPT

Nuclear disarmament official says Iran threatened to slam
U.S., western powers with ‘serious nuclear noncompliance’ if mentioned
in final NPT conference resolution.




Iran may escape censure at a meeting of the
189 signatories of a global anti-nuclear arms pact despite growing
concerns that Tehran might be developing atomic weapons, according to a
draft declaration



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons

Covert US Military Strategy on Iran

Posted by alanmirs on May 25, 2010

Covert US Military Strategy on Iran

By Robert Parry (about the author)     Page 1 of 4 page(s)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   (1 fan)     Permalink

For OpEdNews: Robert Parry – Writer

Reprinted from Consortium News

Hawks in the United States and Israel appear set on "regime change" in Iran, pursuing a game plan similar to the run-up to war in Iraq, ratcheting up tensions while frustrating opportunities for a peaceful settlement.

In the latest example, the New York Times on Tuesday published a leaked account of an order signed by U.S. Central Command chief, Gen. David Petraeus, expanding "clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups to counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region."

 announced on Oct. 1.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad initially supported the swap accord and agreed to a follow-up meeting on Oct. 19 in Vienna.

However, the deal came under criticism from Iran’s opposition groups, including the "Green Movement" led by defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has had ties to the American neocons and to Israel since the Iran-Contra days of the 1980s when he was the prime minister who collaborated on those secret arms deals



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Comments Off on Covert US Military Strategy on Iran