Accueil > Articles in English > Iran : The IAEA defends mullahs’ integrity - decoding
Iran : The IAEA defends mullahs’ integrity - decoding
The latest IAEA report made a shamble into the Iranian nuclear crisis by mentioning the existence in Natanz of 1,010 kilos of freshly enriched uranium, i.e. enough to produce 25 kilos of greatly enriched uranium and of course enough to manufacture a bomb. While the IAEA recommended the sanctions’ lifting in order to ease a possible agreement between Iran and the Six -the Security Council, Americans took advantage of this occasion to demand more sanction. As a result, the IAEA made a step backward and this caused some mess.
Behind the scenes of the crisis - in detail . In June 2002, Americans drew the IAEA’s attention on the existence of underground nuclear activities in Iran. Since then they militated actively to transfer the issue to the Security Council and make sanctions against the mullahs be adopted. In parallel, they told about the possibility of an intervention in Iran with such a conviction that everybody supported the idea that Iranian nuclear issue should be under the Security Council’s responsibility. Actually Washington looked for giving some rightfulness to its own economic sanctions against Iran. By resorting to those sanctions, Washington hoped for weakening Tehran and urging it to accept an Iranian-American agreement that would enable the United States to control every oil trail from the Persian Gulf to Central Asia, both key regions for its adversaries’ growth : China and Russia. However its aim was solely to weaken the regime and not to annihilate it. Whenever the United States considered it managed to implement a battery of sanctions against the mullahs, it published in November 2007 a report, NIE 2007, that stated Iran stopped in 2003 every of its military nuclear activities, a report that is completely in contradiction with its previous allegations made in 2003-2004. Right after they managed to have the pressures on Iran well in hand, Americans then took control over the planning of their attrition war against the mullahs.
It’s important to specify that currently British companies control the major part of the world’s oil markets : an Iranian-American agreement would endanger this centennial supremacy. As they are the potential collateral victims of the Americans’ Asian strategy, the British decided then to thwart this project. On the 25 February 2008, further to a private meeting with the IAEA number two in Vienna, Simon Smith, the IAEA British representative, alerted the media of the existence of proofs that were in contradiction with the American report dated of November 2007. Since then, the documents -Washington mentioned them in the past and then closed them - became the basis of IAEA reports in order to counter the American hold on Iranian nuclear issue, a counterattack that is profitable to the adversaries of any Iranian-American agreement. The IAEA has regularly told about some military nuclear studies in order to dispose of pressure means that would surpass American ones.
In order to recover their intimidation monopole, the Americans decided recently to introduce new elements into their 2007 report : they stated that Tehran produced already 80% of low-enriched uranium and that it was doing relentlessly its best to reach the step of 1,010 kilos so to be able to manufacture a bomb.
In reply, Washington ignored every final recommendation made by Mohammed El Baradai and it solely remembered the lack of transparency and the nuclear potential El Baradai told about in order to demand an emergency treatment via the Six, i.e. a new resolution from the Security Council… Firstly, the Chinese who don’t wish to legitimate American sanctions with Security Council resolutions spread on the double a dispatch that insisted on the absence of high-enriched uranium. However other actors of the crisis -Russians, French  or even British- didn’t follow the Chinese on this way because it appeared incompatible with the previous resolutions they adopted.
Ripple of panic ! Melissa Flemming, the IAEA spokesperson, intervened in order to counter this American attempt ! She stated that the IAEA “had no reason to believe that the previous assessment of the low-enriched uranium that is produced in Natanz plant -630 kilos instead of 1,010 kilos- was part of some Iranian intentional mistake”. According to the IAEA, “those mistakes are inherent with the first phases that are necessary to start such plant meanwhile we couldn’t know in advance what would be in practice its productivity.” In other words, the mullahs’ regime -that is renowned for its lies about this issue- would have lied and wouldn’t deserve such resolution !
Actually, this is true ; it’s mostly the IAEA which lies by changing as it pleased the figures -notably regarding centrifuge. If we consider the other figures the IAEA published previously, Iran would dispose of what is necessary to manufacture around fifteen bombs. Some “experts” who take those reports as a basis wrote it in their books. But those “experts” are completely wrong because every of those lies and manipulations constitute solely stratagems to orchestrate pressures and force the mullahs to do any particular things. Besides this could come to an end if Tehran would announce the suspension of its so-called nuclear activities ; but this is out of question because the mullahs use as well the crisis and the fear of a new war to obtain some safe-conduct for the Hezbollah and the Hamas which are its life insurance.
| Mots Clefs | Nucléaire 2 : AIEA : El Baradei |
| Mots Clefs | Zone géopolitique / Sphère d’influence : USA |
| Mots Clefs | Zone géopolitique / Sphère d’influence : Chine |
| Mots Clefs | Nucléaire : Politique Nucléaire des mollahs |
 Documents discovered on an Iranian laptop obtained by the CIA in 2004 “appear to show blueprints for a nuclear warhead and designs for missiles to carry it.
 France | At first, as it remained silent as a precaution, France broke its silence -right after Flemming- to make a statement that appeared even more neutral and that insists on the necessity for Iran to show further cooperation and dispose of more transparent nuclear program, a pro-American position that doesn’t conflict with the IAEA.