portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

energy & nuclear | imperialism & war

BREAKING: Iran to exit NPA

A blogger - vsredthoughtsecondedition at DailyKos website - about an hour ago broke the story from Iranian news sources that the Iranian government has prepared an "Exit form NPT letter" and, according to that letter, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran immediately will start its full sclae enrichment program if Iran is referred to the Security council by IAEA board. (NPT is the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is currently a signatory.)

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, aka the UN's 'nuclear watchdog') is today (February 4) voting on sending the Iran case to the Security Council for a vote on a demand for Iran to either cease and desist its uranium enrichment program or face international sanctions.

Iranian Supreme National Security Council Deputy Secretary General Javad Vaeedi said on Friday "... Do not forget that if you come to Iran for negotiation after issuing such a resolution, we will allow no suspensions [of our nuclear development activities]. Rather, Iran will negotiate while it is conducting industrial-scale uranium enrichment ..."
The blogger's sources are straight from Iran, namely the Iranian Students News Agency --


and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (part of the Iranian government) --


plus non-English language Iranian on-line news websites.

The English language pages at these sites have been unavailable because of heavy traffic this morning. Also, be prepared for your hook-ups to be slow and difficult - and monitored by NSA?

URL for the blog --


For the NYT story, you must be a registered member of NYTimes.com, but here it is, if you want it --

 link to www.nytimes.com


Background from a New York Times report --

February 3, 2006

"Dispute Over Israel Delays Vote on Iran Nuclear Resolution"


VIENNA, Feb. 3 -- The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency delayed a vote on a landmark resolution on Iran's nuclear program today largely because of American opposition to a clause indirectly criticizing Israel's nuclear weapons status, according to several diplomats.

The countries that sit on the decision-making council of the world's nuclear watchdog agency will meet again on Saturday.

Several diplomats said that it was unlikely that the problem would derail passage of the resolution, which would report Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council for the first time and which enjoys the support of the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany.

But many of them insisted that the United States would have to back down from its position and predicted that the resolution might not pass with as strong a majority as they had hoped.

The problem arose when Egypt insisted that the draft resolution include a specific mention of support for the creation of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

Egypt and other Arab states routinely demand references to a "nuclear free zone" in the Middle East in Security Council documents, arguing that Israel -- which has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons and unlike Iran has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- should be part of a general security framework in the Middle East that bans such weapons.

In the current debate, Egypt has argued that if a resolution is passed that makes the Security Council a player in considering Iran's nuclear program, it must include language about a nuclear-free Middle East.

But the problem has exposed a split between the Americans who oppose the Egyptian demand and Russia, China and the Europeans who support it.

JUST GOT THIS via FireFox news alert --

BBC report as of 4 February 2006, 10:29 GMT

"Key Iran nuclear vote is expected"

The board of the UN nuclear agency has resumed discussions and is due to vote whether to report Iran to the security council over its nuclear activities.

Key delegates have agreed on the wording of a new draft resolution and submitted it to the meeting.

A Friday vote was planned but delayed in an attempt to persuade as many nations as possible to come on board, and send a stronger message to Iran.

Tehran says it will end co-operation if it is reported to the security council.

It denies it has been concealing efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Historic injustice

Correspondents say Friday's delay arose from an attempt by developing countries to soften the resolution, which was rejected by Germany, France and the UK, the countries proposing it.

Also, diplomats say Egypt made a proposal to include a reference to making the Middle East a nuclear weapon free zone.

This was rejected by the US, which saw it as an attack on Israel's nuclear arsenal.

<[We] call on Iran to understand that the board lacks confidence in its intentions in seeking to develop a fissile material production capacity against the background of Iran's record on safeguards.>

Draft UN resolution

But diplomats told AP news agency that Washington eventually agreed to the clause after it received overwhelming backing from European allies.

Iran's former leader said reporting it to the UN would be a historic injustice.

Speaking at Friday prayers, ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said there were better ways to resolve the issue and warned that reporting Tehran would be a "black page" in history.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said Tehran would stop allowing UN inspections and resume peaceful nuclear activities "without restriction" if Iran was sent to the Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions.

Iran recently decided to resume suspended research on uranium enrichment.

This has not yet led to full-scale uranium enrichment - a process that creates fuel for nuclear reactors and, potentially, for a nuclear bomb - but Western powers are concerned.

Iran maintains its programme is for producing energy and does not have a military aim.

'Window of opportunity'

The 35-member board of the UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had been due to reconvene on Friday afternoon in Vienna for the second day of its emergency meeting on Iran.

But the scheduled meeting was first delayed and then postponed until Saturday morning, following a day of backroom diplomacy.

An EU diplomat earlier told Reuters news agency that supporters of sending Iran to the Security Council thought they had the votes to succeed.


16 Feb, Moscow: Russia and Iran resume talks on Russia's proposed compromise
March, Vienna: IAEA to report on Iranian compliance; possible Security Council action to follow

The resolution to be considered urges Iran to extend "indispensable and overdue" co-operation to the IAEA and help it "clarify possible activities which could have a military dimension".

Russian had argued that the IAEA motion must not contain any immediate threat of sanctions against Iran.

Moscow, a major trading partner of Tehran's, has offered to enrich uranium for Iran on its own soil.

The proposal is designed to give Iran the fuel it wants while easing fears that it could be diverted to bomb-making.

However, Iranian negotiator Javad Vaeidi warned on Friday that reporting Iran to the UN would "kill" any chance of the Russian compromise deal going ahead.

Russian and Iranian officials are expected to meet on 16 February to discuss the proposal.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2006/02/04 10:29:03 GMT
Rumsfeld: Iran Regime Sponsors Terrorism... 04.Feb.2006 07:10

Pravda or Consequences

From ap.org

"MUNICH, Germany (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld urged America's allies to increase their military spending to prevent the rise of a "global extremist Islamic empire."

He warned "a war has been declared on all of our nations" and said their "futures depend on determination and unity in the face of the terrorist threat."

Funny, the only one creating war is the planet's leading terrorist, the U.S.

"We could choose to pretend, as some suggest, that the enemy is not at our doorstep. We could choose to believe, as some contend, that the threat is exaggerated. But those who would follow such a course must ask: what if they are wrong? What if at this moment, the enemy is counting on being underestimated, counting on being dismissed, and counting on our preoccupation," Rumsfeld said."

And what proof does the Secretary have? None. Only the U.S. is pushing empire dominance over others.

"They seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent," he said. "They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire."

Just like Starbucks.

"Freedom prevailed because our free nations showed resolve when retreat would have been easier, and showed courage when concession seemed simpler," he said."

Ain't nobody free except the rich and powerful. And they got that way by taking freedom and dignity away from others.

There may be one bright spot in all of this... 04.Feb.2006 07:13

Pravda or Consequences

and that is (again from ap.org);

"Agreement on the final wording of the text was reached just hours before Saturday's meeting convened, after Washington compromised on Egypt's demand that the resolution include support for the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Egypt and other Arab states have long linked the two issues of Iran's atomic ambitions and Israel's nuclear weapons status.

The resolution recognized "that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and ... the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery."

A Western diplomat at the meeting said the United States felt strongly about not linking Israel to nuclear concerns in the Middle East when it considers Iran the real threat. But the Americans relented in the face of overwhelming European support for such a clause."

. 04.Feb.2006 09:09


The U.S. government is a disgusting morass of lies, deception, greed and power lust.

iran knows america under bush is weak and stretched thin. 04.Feb.2006 10:28

this thing here

regardless of whether iran is developing nuclear weapons, or intends to develope them, or actually only wishes to have nuclear power, IRAN KNOWS THESE THINGS:

- justifiable anger and suspicion throughout the entire middle east towards america and it's militarism.

- u.s. military forces, in particular it's land forces, bogged down in iraq and afghanistan.

- absolutely no way in hell a draft in the u.s. will be started. (unless of course, a conveniently planted bomb goes off in d.c. or nyc, the bush admin. says "the terrorists" did it, and the media endlessly pumps up the fear fear fear...)

- any attack on iran, no matter how "small" or "surgical", would give the green light for iran to start funding and arming shi'ite militias in iraq, if they aren't already, thereby spreading the war like a lethal cancer from iraq alone to both irag AND iran, thereby bogging down the overworked and exhausted u.s. land forces in iraq even more, destroying any progress the u.s. military may have made in rebuilding efforts, jeopardizing the entire mission in iraq.

- any attack on iran, no matter how "small" or "surgical", will be a green light for islamic militants all around the world to step up their attacks.

- any attack on iran, no matter how "small" or "surgical", will be yet one more reason to become a hardcore islamic militant.

- any attack on iran, no matter how "small" or "surgical", would give the islamic hardliners in iran one more reason to round up and "disappear" democracy advocates and reformist elements inside iran, thereby jeopardizing that avenue.

- any attack on iran, no matter how "small" or "surgical", would face even more opposition in the u.s. than iraq did, with immediate calls that iran is bush's cambodia, and that bush has just totally fucked everything up, massive and violent street demonstrations, etc. (unless... anger is suffocated by fear. see above about conveniently planted bomb...)

- any attack on iran, no matter how "small" or "surgical", would drive up oil prices even more, with the potential for an iranian stranglehold on the strait of hormuz, followed by u.s. air and naval attacks to allow oil out of the gulf, followed by outright war between iran and the u.s.

if i can see the weakness of my country's position, don't doubt for minute that iran too sees the weakness of the entire u.s. position, and the strength of it's own, and is going to play it's hand, regardless of what it has or does not.

and can you blame them? can you? are they the foolish ones? are they the ones who can't put together a strategy, who are incompetent strategists? a bunch of fuck ups, really, with a dubious ideology that looks like jesus and "values" and all that is good but in practice reeks of shit and corruption and lies and violence, who are weakened none the less, ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS WEAKENED, by a serious, lethal addiction to oil...

BREAKING - Reuters: Iran defiant against U.S. initiative 04.Feb.2006 13:16

reposter 2

From Reuters report (half hour ago) via Yagoo! News

By Mark Heinrich and Francois Murphy 26 minutes ago

VIENNA (Reuters)

A defiant Tehran said it would end snap U.N. inspections of its nuclear plants from Sunday.


"This vote will enable open discussion in the Security Council on Iran but no formal debate on what to do about the issue until after (IAEA chief Mohamed) ElBaradei submits his broad assessment in March," said an EU3 diplomat.


But Iran threw down the gauntlet after Saturday's vote.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered Tehran's atomic energy commission to halt short-notice IAEA checks of nuclear-related installations and equipment from Sunday.

"All of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities will continue within the framework of the IAEA and based on the NPT and the agency's safeguards," he said.

"From February 5, Iran will suspend its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and its other cooperation beyond it."

Iranian IAEA envoy Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh said the "hasty and immature" board decision would force Iran to move into "commercial-scale" enrichment of uranium, the fuel for power plants -- or if purified to high levels -- warheads.

Nuclear experts, however, question whether Iran has yet developed the technology to move soon into large-scale enrichment.

Iranian officials said the vote could destroy any basis for talks on Russia's proposal to defuse Iran's standoff with the West by taking in Iranian uranium for enrichment, in theory preventing diversions to bomb-making.

Asked whether talks on the proposal were now off, Russian ambassador to the IAEA Grigory Berdennikov said: "We have spoken to the Iranians and the impression that we got was that the proposal is still on the table and negotiations will continue."

But Chinese Ambassador Wu Hailongon stressed there was still room for resolving concerns about Iran within the IAEA.

"China calls on all relevant parties to exercise restraint and patience and refrain from taking any action that might further complicate and deteriorate the situation," he said.


Rare consensus between the permanent powers on the Security Council -- Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China -- over Iran reached last week made the vote possible. Moscow and Beijing hindered U.S.-led attempts at previous IAEA board meetings to report Iran to the Council.

Concrete Security Council action is likely to come slowly, if at all, given stubborn divisions among its permanent members over the utility of sanctions against Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter.

Beijing and Moscow, keen to preserve energy trade with Iran, oppose moves toward punitive sanctions, raising the risk of the Iranian nuclear issue stalling in the Security Council.

... 04.Feb.2006 13:49

this thing here

>Concrete Security Council action is likely to come slowly, if at all, given stubborn divisions among its permanent members over the utility of sanctions against Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter.

Beijing and Moscow, keen to preserve energy trade with Iran, oppose moves toward punitive sanctions, raising the risk of the Iranian nuclear issue stalling in the Security Council.<

well well well. one more weakness in the bush admin. position iran knows it can take advantage of. they're all over the place...

The Real Reason 04.Feb.2006 16:45

Jack Straw

The real reason for the coming US attack: not nukes, imagined or real, but Iran's plans to open an oil bourse. Unlike the existing bourses in London and New York, this one will enable purchases of oil for Euros, vs Dollars, undermining the Dollar's present global supremacy, and with it, the last real leverage the US still has on the world market. Articles about this are all over the web, several are at

A lack of 04.Feb.2006 17:38

concrete action

in the Security Council is not the problem it might appear to be. On the contrary, a stalemate at the u.n. is precisely the justification the Neo-Cons want, and need, to legitimize their plan for making a pre-emptive military move on Iran.

When diplomacy fails, as it surely will at the u.n., the neo-cons will have our recess-appointed ambassador, johnny hard-on, stand out front of the building on 48th St. mouthing his standard assertion about the U.N. failing to take care of the world's problems. During his speech, the dicks in the big house will stand around in cabalarian circle jerking out the mantra on how they have no choice but to do whatever is necessary to keep the peace--because those "others" hate our freedoms, don't ya' know. And then, the neo-con ideologies will engage the war machines, like a key going into the ignition of a brand-new lexus, and another round will start in the perpetual war for perpetual peace.

indeed. 04.Feb.2006 17:49

this thing here

though i sense the bush admin.'s weakness, and though i suspect iran is aware of it too, that it no way means the bush admin. is any less crazy, vicous, and dangerous. all the more so if they are desperate...

dollar vs euro 04.Feb.2006 23:45

i dont know

Wierd triangle.

Iran Contra and Irael middle men. A republican thing remember. I do not know for all that pertains
is secret.

So one must guess. My best geuss all this talk is crap. All this talk is to keep every body rattled.
Iran may control production of its feilds but not its didtribution. Thus the euro issue is a farce. Why? Supper tankers will just pay carriers to travel in any denominatin sammy want.

Another weirs thing is that ahmas is also financed by Iran and israel. Thats pretty weird.

One thing in common of late is that very religeous folks like to kill.

euro vs dollar? 05.Feb.2006 00:20


Not saying the currency switch isn't the reason for the attack, but the same could be said of Iraq, yet Blair and a few others went along with the lame bastard Bush. So, why would a leader of Europe undermine the Euro?

Of course, 05.Feb.2006 01:45

Blair's Exchequer

ie., the central bank of the u.k. does not use the euro, preferring to continue trading in the Brtish pound.

Israeli terrorists are okay 06.Feb.2006 12:40

Fredric L. Rice frice@skeptictank.org

It should be obvious that it's the Israeli terrorist State that's pulled the Bush regime's strings to try to get the UN to reject Egypts' attempt to curb the Israeli treat. Egypt's call to force the world's secong worst terrorist State to give up its nuclear weapons is a reasonable one. Lacking that, Islamic states in the Middle East are evidenced in need of nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

This fascist Bush regime would never have invaded Iraq and raped, tortured, and slaughtered its way through the Iraqi people to try to seize control of their oil had Iraq had the means to defend itself.

Now the Isreali terrorists are collaborating with the Bush terrorists to ensure that Iran not only can never develop the weapons it needs to defend themselves against these terrorists, but also don';t have the capabilities to produce electrical power.

This fascist regime's agenda is clear: Israeli and US terrorism is good, brown-skin self defense is bad.

My opinions only and only my opinions.

Why currency matters 06.Feb.2006 15:00

Jack Straw

Island Economics by Eric Andrews. One piece about Euro vs Dollar

Another good one on currency question 06.Feb.2006 15:03

Jack Straw

Another good article re the Euro vs Dollar question.

thanks jack and exchequer 06.Feb.2006 21:38