Lies of the Neo-Crazies

Because Bush-Bolton and the neo-crazies have legions of sycophants ensconced at all major media outlets, feeding you a daily diet of lies, misrepresentations and false innuendo about – among other things – Iran’s nuclear programs, you’re probably in need of this palliative.

Recall that Iran:

  • has been a "Member State" of the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1958,
  • has been a signatory to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since 1968, and
  • has had an IAEA Safeguards Agreement "in force" since 1974. In 2003, Iran signed an Additional Protocol to its existing Safeguards Agreement and has since voluntarily "cooperated" with the IAEA as though the protocol were actually in force – which it is not.

Furthermore, in order to "build further confidence" that Iran’s nuclear programs are strictly peaceful, Iran voluntarily suspended all uranium-conversion, uranium-enrichment and plutonium-separation activities.

Since Iran had already voluntarily made these activities subject to IAEA Safeguards, the IAEA was notified of this voluntarily suspension and invited to verify and monitor it.


Now, for the last decade, the neo-crazies and their media sycophants have been charging that Iran has been pursuing a "nuclear weapons" program – right under the multiple sensors of IAEA inspectors – in "violation" of the NPT.

Recently, Bush-Rice-Bolton have been demanding that Iran’s "violation of the NPT" be brought before the U.N. Security Council for punitive action.

If that is not done, the neo-crazies have been threatening to pre-emptively "take out" all facilities they suspect of being associated with that alleged "nuclear weapons" program, including the IAEA Safeguarded nuclear power plant at Bushehr now nearing completion by the Russians.

Bear in mind that IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and his inspectors have been conducting highly intrusive – go-anywhere, see-anything – inspections in Iran for the past two years and have yet to find any "indication" that Iran now has, ever had, or intends to have a "nuclear weapons program."

Nor, for that matter, has ElBaradei found any indication that Iran has violated its voluntary suspension of its Safeguarded uranium-conversion, uranium-enrichment and plutonium-separation activities.

Now, contrary to Bush-Rice-Bolton misrepresentations – if not lies – the NPT has no enforcement provision or mechanism.

For example, suppose Libya sought – or accepted – assistance from Pakistan on how to design or produce a nuclear weapon. Libya would have been, thereby, in "violation" of Article II of the NPT.

But, the NPT doesn’t even suggest what other NPT-signatories could have done about it under the NPT.

Ah, but there’s Article III of the NPT, which required Libya and other no-nuke NPT signatories to subject themselves to bilateral IAEA Safeguards agreements "with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons."

If Libya had refused to "conclude" an IAEA Safeguards agreement, that would have been a "violation" of Article III of the NPT.

But Libya didn’t refuse.

So, Libya hasn’t "violated" Article III.

But, Article III goes on to say, "Procedures for the Safeguards required by this article shall be followed."


But, who decides whether or not those procedures are followed?

And who decides what action to take if they aren’t?

Well, according to Article XII of the IAEA Statute, IAEA’s staff of inspectors will "determine whether there is compliance with the [statutory] undertaking against use in furtherance of any military purpose."

The IAEA inspectors "shall report any [statutory] non-compliance to the Director General who shall thereupon transmit the report to the Board of Governors."

The IAEA Board "shall report the [statutory] non-compliance to all members and to the Security Council and General Assembly of the United Nations."

So, by requiring no-nuke NPT-signatories – such as Libya and Iran – to conclude a bilateral Safeguards agreement with the IAEA, the NPT incorporates the already existing IAEA inspection and verification system, as well as its statutory enforcement mechanism.

In 2003, Libya also signed an Additional Protocol and IAEA inspectors soon discovered that IAEA-proscribed materials and facilities were being "used in furtherance of" a "military purpose," in violation of the IAEA Statute.

Not the NPT. The IAEA Statute.

But even then, because Libya remedied its statutory "non-compliance" forthwith, the IAEA Board did not even ask the Security Council to invoke sanctions for violations of the IAEA Statute.

So, even if Condi-baby succeeds this week in seducing or blackmailing ElBaradei into reporting to the IAEA Board exactly what the neo-crazies dictate, they are unlikely to get U.N. authorization to "take out" Bushehr and other IAEA Safeguarded facilities in Iran.

Don’t you feel better, already?

June 13, 2005