[R-G] A Giant Backward Step on Iran

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE30Ak01.html>
May 30, 2008
A giant backward step on Iran
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

"We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is
building nuclear weapons and I've been saying that consistently for
the last five years," Mohammad ElBaradei, the director general of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated last week at the
World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

Unfortunately, the only thing consistent about ElBaradei is his
inconsistency, reflected in his subsequent report, just delivered to
the United Nations Security Council, which has been widely interpreted
as "a grim reminder that Tehran is pressing ahead with its nuclear
program", to paraphrase a New York Times editorial; the editorial goes
on to say that ElBaradei's report "expresses serious concern about
evidence [outlined in 18 documents accompanying the report] that Iran
is working on programs with clear military applications".

The report said Iran continued to stonewall investigators looking into
documents alleging its government researched atomic weapons.

But, didn't the same respected chief of the UN's atomic agency admit
in his earlier report, in February, that his agency "has no credible
information" regarding the so-called "alleged weaponization" studies?
What magic was pulled on the IAEA to bestow sudden legitimacy on the
admittedly "unreliable" and "dubious" information (other than the heat
of US pressure)? Is this now the end of the IAEA's hitherto heroic
standing up to the external pressures that threatened to compromise
its integrity?

Sadly, ElBaradei's latest report gives a strong impression that this
may indeed be what is in store for the IAEA, which does not bode well
either for the agency's own international prestige or for the future
of its relationship with Iran - which has reacted angrily by calling
the report a work of "deception" and deeply "flawed".

New Majlis (parliament) speaker Ali Larijani - a former negotiator for
Iran on its nuclear case - said in his first address to the
legislature, "If they [the IAEA] want to continue along this path, the
Majlis will surely take up the nuclear case and will set a new line
for cooperation with the agency."

Indeed, this report represents a giant leap backward with respect to
the IAEA's performance on the Iran nuclear question, casting serious
doubt on the agency's ability to conduct its business professionally
and impartially. It was a mere two months ago that the agency gave a
rather glowing report that declared all the "outstanding questions"
minus the "alleged studies", which were never a part of the Iran-IAEA
work plan in the first place, had been successfully resolved. Now the
IAEA has now responded to the tremendous US backlash in the form of
retracting some of its statements and adopting the US's allegations
basically as facts warranting "serious concerns" about the
peacefulness of Iran's nuclear program.

In so doing, ElBaradei may have done some damage control in his
relations with Washington, yet he has surely undermined the
international community's confidence in his ability to operate
independently and objectively, thus causing a widening perception gap
toward the IAEA, between the West and the developing nations that are
members of the Non-Aligned Movement.

A clue to the bias of this report, ElBaradei fully contradicts himself
by on the one hand stating that Iran's May 14 response to the IAEA's
query regarding the alleged studies "could not yet be assessed by the
agency" yet, on the other hand, puts a negative assessment on it by
declaring it inadequate by statements such as "substantive
explanations are required for Iran to support its statements".

A more prudent director general would have issued his report after a
careful assessment of Iran's response, including for example Iran's
claim that some of the studies pertain to conventional military
purposes.

Although both this and prior IAEA reports confirm that the "agency has
not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the
alleged studies", the tone of the latest report is so severe as to
thoroughly discount this important observation as well as the fact
that the IAEA has had unprecedented access to all nuclear facilities
in Iran well beyond the scope of its inspection and verification
agreements with Tehran.

Another clue to the report's bias deals with its request for "more
information on the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium
metal document". This pertains to a 15-page document describing the
procedures for the reduction of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to uranium
metal, which can have weapons applications. Iran's position is that
this was given to Iran, by the Pakistanis, in 1987 on their own
volition and no activities were ever taken on them. The latter is
confirmed in the IAEA's November 2007 report that states, "The agency
has seen no indication of any UF6 reconversion and casting activity in
Iran."

In his February report, ElBaradei stated he was waiting for
information from Pakistan to confirm Iran's response. Now, he admits
in his latest report that the IAEA has indeed received such
information that is consistent with Iran's statements, yet the issue
has not been put to rest.

Isn't the real purpose of keeping alive a moot issue, pertaining to a
21-year-old document, anything other than appeasing the Western powers
that thirst in their desire for accusing Iran of nuclear
proliferation?

As a result, is it any wonder that US officials and media pundits have
turned a deaf ear to the IAEA's categorical statement that it has not
detected any evidence of military diversion, that it has been able to
"verify" the non-diversion?

The weight of disproportionate attention given to the "alleged
studies" in ElBaradei's report facilitates the selective attention
seen in the New York Times editorial, cited above, as well as in a
slew of other US editorials, as if the entire US media have been put
on automatic control on an "Iran offensive" fueled by this report,
repeating parrot-like the official Washington line.

Conspicuously absent in all reports is any reflection on the simple
fact that these IAEA reports cite no evidence of safeguard breaches by
Iran. Their frenzy of spinning things in an anti-Iran direction is
clearly directed toward generating more heat on the recalcitrant UN
Security Council members - Russia and China - to go along with more UN
sanctions on Iran. And this while the previous IAEA report raised
hopes that the council would gradually wash its hands of the Iran
nuclear dossier and let it return to its proper forum, the IAEA.

Wiping out that glimmer of hope by the fiat of his new emphasis on the
"possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, ElBaradei
has also potentially jeopardized the well-spring of Iran's confidence
in his agency, reflected in the stern statements that Tehran may now
reconsider its cooperation with the IAEA. After all, if the net result
of Tehran's nuclear transparency and cooperation is more fuel to
punish Iran, why bother.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New
Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of
"Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs,
Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also
wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International
Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus
Fiction.

-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>