Did the Western Great Powers Ever Want to Stop the Iranian Nuke Program? -- The Same Powers Favored Mussolini with the Same Trick

UPDATING 1-13&3-13-2012

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

It has been known for years that Iran was working on a nuclear program. Former Israeli prime minster Yits'haq Rabin was warning about it before he was killed in 1995. This program has long seemed aimed at producing an Iranian atomic bomb, despite Iran's commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in violation of that treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency was dealing with the issue years ago. Yet nothing concrete has been done by the major Western powers to stop the nuke program or, more precisely, nothing that we know of other than economic sanctions. And even those sanctions waited for years to be imposed. Iran was given a "last chance" to mend its nuclear ways as far back as 2003. But there were several subsequent "last chances."

The US delegate to the IAEA gave a rather good speech at the March 2006 meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors. But little if any concrete action came out of the meeting. One problem was the head of the IAEA at the time, Muhammad Barada'i, an Egyptian who consistently belittled warnings that the Iranian nuclear project was meant to produce a nuke bomb. He did this although his own government seems to have been concerned with Iranian aggressive actions and intentions toward the Sunni Muslim world, as were several other Sunni Arab powers, like Saudi Arabia.

All this time Iran's work on developing the nuke bomb has been progressing, and sanctions of any seriousness were only applied relatively recently. This means that US presidents going back to Bill Clinton were not acting against the threat of an Iranian nuke bomb. These presidents include Clinton, George Bush II [I don't know about his father], and Obama who openly declared a soft policy on Iran. Obama's policy is softer now even than that of Britain although the US and Britain are so often in lock-step on foreign policy issues. This article & this one indicate that the Obama administration is opposed to stronger sanctions on Iran called for by the House of Representatives. Here is a report of British actions imposed after rioters instigated by the Iranian govt attacked the UK embassy in Teheran.

Elliott Abrams, a former Bush Administration defense official, lists a number of recent Obama administration statements that discard any threat or possibility of military force to be used against Iran and/or its nuke program. Abrams interprets a recent declaration by an Obama "national official," the deputy national security advisor, as giving:

. . . a White House assurance that the United States does not intend to challenge an assertion of Iranian dominance in the region. [here]

For years the great powers avoided placing sanctions on Iran which was violating its commitment to the NPT [non-proliferation treaty]. Now, the great powers are imposing sanctions. But what does that mean? The game of great powers imposing sanctions that will not accomplish their ostensible purpose, in this case preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb, has a history. Consider the sanctions imposed by the League of Nations on Italy over the invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s.

The regime [Mussolini's regime] conquered its empire of stone and sand in Ethiopia, its "place in the sun." It succeeded in doing that, in fact, with Anglo-French backing. France and England, through the League of Nations which they controlled, had a fake economic embargo passed against Italy. However, excluded from it [the embargo] was the supply of Iraqi oil which our [Italian] troops marching on Addis Ababa could not do without. In any event, those sanctions were never applied and were even revoked immediately after the success of the Duce's colonial undertaking.
[Mario Jose Cereghino e Giovanni Fasanella, Il Golpe Inglese (Milano: Chiarelettere 2011), p 36-- emphasis added].
[The key phrase in this passage is "fake economic embargo". In the original it is "finto embargo economico"]

So fake or inadequate economic sanctions are an old trick of great powers. The authors of the passage quoted are saying in essence that Britain and France wanted Italy to conquer Ethiopia in that period. The delay of sanctions against Iran for years --let's say at least since 2003-- and the eventual imposition of inadequate sanctions just show that the powers can still get away with their old tricks. Nothing new under the sun.

- - - - - - - -
12-18-2011 Jonathan Tobin sees the sanctions as weak and notes the Obama administration's refusal to sanction dealings with Iran's central bank [National Bank of Iran].
1-5-2012 Jonathan Tobin sees Obama as reluctant or unwilling --and in case unlikely-- to enforce the sanctions against dealing with the Iranian Central Bank. Read him here.
1-8-2012 Michael Rubin believes that the Washington "foreign policy establishment" engages in doubletalk in order not to propose real and biting sanctions on Iran's ayatollahs [here]
1-13-2012 Jonathan Tobin wonders if the Obama administration condemnation of the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist conceals a reluctance to stop Iran's nuke project [here]
3-13-2012 Jonathan Tobin claims that Israel's hints that it might strike Iran's nuke project have brought Obama & Cameron together in antagonism to such an Israeli strike and have led the EU and USA to increase sanctions on Iran [here]

Western Great Powers Give Iran One Last Chance on Its Nuclear Program -- in 2003!!

UPDATING 1-4 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 20 & 3-3 & 4 & 4-21-2010

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

One of the good things about reading old newspapers is that, if you're still alive and kicking and the world still spinning on its axis, then the terrible things that the old paper reported are really not all that bad. You can look back at the horrors and crimes of the past and take satisfaction in still being alive. Another thing is that old newspaper articles can illuminate what is happening now as you read. I found a good example of that in a report from September 10, 2003, in Avvenire, that I came across just lately. Germany, Great Britain and France, I learned, wanted to give Iran a "last chance" to prove that it was fulfilling its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] and was not developing nuclear weapons. And these powers had persuaded the United States to agree that the IAEA [international atomic energy agency] should give Iran one last chance. US ambassador Kenneth Brill, who sits on the IAEA's council of governors, announced that the US had been persuaded by other member states sitting on the council of governors

"to give Iran a last chance to stop its evasions."
[ I had at first translated Brill's statement fromthe Italian translation back into English. I have since found the original English text (quoted just above) here & here]

So the Agency governors decided that Iran has "till the end of October, 2003," to prove that it is not in non-fulfillment of its obligations under the NPT. That's very reassuring to read now in the first days of 2010. After all, the same thing, the same last chance, several times repeated, has been given to the Iranians and is being given again. So the "last chance" was given over and over. Yet, I and whoever reads this is still alive. So maybe things aren't so bad.

Now, what sort of regime was in power in Iran that the West was treating so leniently? It was a very Judeophobic regime. It was a regime that hated Israel. It was also a regime that had come to power with the help of the Carter administration in the United States, that is, with the help of president jimmah carter and his national insecurity advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of them fervent haters of Israel.

Then, the Iranian Islamist regime, at first headed by Ayatollah Khomeini, had sent assassins abroad to kill Iranian opponents of the regime, Ali Akbar Tabatabai, Shapur Bakhtiar, and others. There is a list of 58 assassination attempts --mostly successful-- outside Iran, perpetrated by Islamic Republic agents. The list includes names of places and victims, intended and unintended, of assassination. The victims were mostly Iranians living abroad, opponents of the regime, but included several non-Iranians, among them translators of Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, as well as collateral victims. The murders were perpetrated on orders of the regime. The total number of victims is several more than 58 [here]. Some of the victims were murdered in the United States and France, although both states had done much to make Khomeini's return to Iran possible. That is not very nice international behavior. But Iran didn't care about offending and the West did not seem especially offended, not even states where such murders had been perpetrated by Iranian agents.

We cannot forget the countless people killed by the regime within Iran, although we don't know their names. On the other hand, the death sentence issued by Khomeini against the novelist Salman Rushdie was notorious. Rushdie has been living in hiding from Iranian assassins for more than 20 years. His offense was Islamic blasphemy, which Khomeini, Ahmadinajad and their gang wanted to forbid even in non-Muslim countries. It's curious how few Western intellectuals were willing to stand up for Rushdie's freedom of speech, even while he was living in Britain. Rushdie's life is still in danger. None of this brought the Western great powers to strongly oppose the Iranian regime. After all, the United States and France had served as midwives for the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini and his gang.

The Judeophobia of the Khomeini regime and its Lebanese satellite, Hizbollah, known at first in the West as "The Party of God" [the literal translation of Hizbollah], is notorious. A Hizbollah paper in Lebanon wrote, in reaction to the French elections of 1987 [or 1988?] that "The Jewish microbe is everywhere" [Le microbe juif est partout]. This was because the elections did not turn out as Hizbollah/Iran had wanted, for which they blamed the Jewish voters in France. [This was published in LeFigaro at that time].

But the really strong expressions of hatred of Jews [stronger even than those before] appeared on 20 October 2006 when Ahmadinajad warned

"Israel will disappear . . . [because of] the rage of hundreds of millions of Muslims"

He described the Israeli people as

terrorists and enemies of religion [= Islam].
[quoted by Carlo Panella in Fascismo Islamico (Milan: Rizzoli 2007), pp 23-24.

This is a case of projection where Islamic fanatics project their own character on others, particularly on their designated enemies. Ahmadinajad also lied in that same speech about Britain and the United States creating Israel, a lie that fit in conveniently with what walt-mearsheimer were saying at the time. All this was known about Ahmadinajad and his regime in 2006, yet the "last chances," which were being given already in 2003, continued to be given. US secretary of state, Colin Powell, appointed by George W Bush, declared himself "open to dialogue" with Iran in 2003 [Corriere della Sera, 31 December 2003]. Likewise, candidate, later president, Barak Hussein Obama, declared that he was eager for dialogue, smart diplomacy, and negotiations with Iran in the years 2008 and 2009. So last chances go back more than six years from now, as does openness to dialogue.

This was all notwithstanding the Iranian boasts over the years of military advances, specifically in long-range rocket development, as well as in nuclear development. These rockets can reach Europe, not to mention Israel. What have all the attempts to placate Islamist Iran achieved? Iran recently declared that it would develop ten new uranium enrichment sites [International Herald Tribune, 30 November 2009].

The Iranian government responded defiantly Sunday [11-29-2009] to an international call for a halt in its uranium enrichment work by vowing to do the opposite, as it approved a plan to build ten additional enrichment facilities.
[IHT, 11-30-2009]

It sure as hell looks like the major Western powers want Iran to have The bomb. We forecast in June 2007 that that was the case. Unfortunately, it looks more and more as if we were right.

We will leave for another time the consideration of the motives for Western appeasement of Islamic fundamentalist Iran.
- - - - - - - - - - -

For previous articles on this issue on the Emet m'Tsiyon blog see here & here & here & here
- - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATINGS 1-12-2010 more links to articles on this issue: Jonathan Tobin on Commentary's Contentions blog [here]
Rick Richman follows up on Tobin [here]. So after more than six [6] years of missed "deadlines" or deadlines that never died, Obama and his partners in facilitating an Iranian bomb are still missing their own deadlines.
1-13-2010 Iranians believe that the Iranian regime murdered the recently assassinated Iranian physicist in Teheran, using some of their Hizbollah agents [here].
1-20-2010 The Saudis are worried about increasing Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, according to Lee Smith [He quotes the following words from a pre-Obama American official] : “'. . . what the Saudis were really concerned about. The number one issue in Riyadh is Iran.' . . .
'. . . the Saudi line,' the former [American] official said, 'was this: ‘Americans, are you going to do anything about our number one issue? If not, we will go our own road.’” [here]
Rick Richman [Commentary blog, 3-3-2010] points out the fatuousness of Obama's Iran bomb policy, guided perhaps by Zbig Brzezinski's mad dreams of "deterrence" of a bomb-equipped Iran [here]. Zbig of course wants the mad mullahs to have the bomb. Why not? He helped them take power as Carter's national insecurity advisor. When Carl Foreman's film, Dr Strangelove, came out in the early sixties, the character of Strangelove was widely believed to be based on Henry Kissinger. Actually, Zbig fits the bill just as well as Dr K does. He too loves the bomb.
3-4-2010 More good cheer from Washington and New York on the Iranian bomb threat, by Emmanuele Ottolenghi [here]
4-21-2010 Jennifer Rubin thinks that the Obama crowd is still procrastinating about The Iranian Bomb[here].

The West Is Getting Ready to Surrender to the Ayatollahs over Iran's Nuclear Project

UPDATINGS 12-10, 14, 17, 19-2009 at bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

The Obama administration, even more so than the Bush administration before it, goes through some ineffective, rather transparent motions pretending to try or pretending to want to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But in Europe, some serious people are very worried indeed, as Israelis are. We have already noted French President Sarkozy's rather overt criticism of Obama for not taking the Iranian bomb project seriously enough, for not doing anything really capable of stopping A-jad's quest for the bomb. Some French political authors have written seriously on the subject, more than is usual --it seems-- in the USA where Columbia University seems to have considered it perfectly acceptable to accept a large cash "contribution" from an Iranian-controlled foundation in exchange for inviting A-jad to speak at Morningside Heights.

In Italy too concerned voices have been raised. Indeed, the Italian political commentator, Carlo Panella, recently wrote that the West is getting ready to surrender on the Iranian nuclear issue, while the newspaper Il Foglio deplores Muhammad al-Barada'is' endeavors to water down and obfuscate the issue and conceal Iran's rather obvious nuclear bomb intentions. Panella discusses the futility of the Geneva talks --if one really wants to end Iran's nuclear bomb project, as well as criticizing Obama for temporizing.

Muhammad al-Barada'i took on the not so difficult task of explaining to the world --i.e. to Barack Obama-- what it means to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize that he received in 2005: playing three cards, cheating naturally. He did not deny himself yesterday when, at the end of the second Geneva meeting on the Iranian nuclear project between Teheran's delegation and the Four Plus One (USA, UK, France, Russia plus Germany), he triumphantly announced: "It was a good beginning"!
. . . .
Even worse, after Ali Shirizadian, the Iranian spokesman, announced that the transfer of uranium enrichment abroad, the subject of the negotiations, was only meant to contain costs, but did not in fact mean the end of the enrichment programs developed in Iran or the full transfer of these programs outside the country." In short, Iran will never transfer all of the nuclear processing outside its borders (and therefore will be quite free to obtain the heavy uranium that it needs for the atomic bomb) and will restrict itself to transferring a part of it abroad, but only for the savings. A solemn joke at the expense of the gullible, to which was added a dry kick in the teeth for France that Iran accuses of thwarting the negotiations. Therefore, it will never ever agree to transfer any enrichment processing to that country. A humiliation of one of the principal countries seated at the negotiating table, which follows dozens of other provocations.

. . .
Therefore, the Geneva negotiations are turning out to be what Iran wanted them to be: a loss of time which allows the pasdaran and the ayatollahs to proceed undisturbed to bestow an atomic bomb on themselves. It is the nth confirmation of the total failure of the "change" undertaken by Barack Obama, of the end of the carrot and stick policy started by George W Bush, and the obvious result of the end of any threat of reprisal against Iran --including military-- that the new president wanted. From delay to delay, Obama has given the Iranian military atomic program more than one year's time to develop undisturbed (Bush suspended his policy, based on negotiations but also on concrete military threats, in the Fall of 2008, specifically on the possibility that Obama might win the elections and make it moot), and now he continues to move back the date of a final check. First he set the end of September and then the end of October. Now it will go to December and then he will continue temporizing. Obama is giving the world a proof of extraordinary weakness and absolute blindness. He is demonstrating that he fully deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Like al-Barada'i.

Here is Panella's original:

Mohammed el Baradei si è assunto il non difficile compito di spiegare al mondo –ae a Barack Obama- cosa significhi essere insignito del Nobel per la Pace, che ricevette nel 2005: giocare alle tre carte, barando, naturalmente. Non si è smentito ieri, quando, a conclusione del secondo incontro di Ginevra sul nucleare iraniano, tra la delegazione di Teheran e i “quattro più uno”, ha annunciato trionfante: “E’ stato un buon inizio”!
. . . . .
Ancor peggio, dopo che Ali Shirizadian, portavoce iraniano, ha annunciato che lo spostamento dell’arricchimento dell’uranio all’estero –oggetto della trattativa di Ginevra- punta solo ad un contenimento dei costi, ma che non significa affatto la fine dei programmi d’arricchimento sviluppate in Iran o il trasferimento integrale di queste operazioni al di fuori del paese”. Insomma, l’Iran non trasferirà mai l’intero processo nucleare fuori dalle sue frontiere (e quindi sarà liberissimo di arrivare all’uranio pesante che gli serve per la bomba atomica) e si limiterà a spostarne una parte all’estero, ma solo per risparmiare. Una solenne presa per i fondelli, a cui si aggiunge un secco calcio nei denti alla Francia che l’Iran accusa di avversare la trattativa, per cui mai e poi mai accetterà di trasferire nessun processo di arricchimento in quel paese. Una umiliazione ad uno dei principali paesi seduti al tavolo della trattativa, che segue decine di altre provocazioni. . .

. . . . . .
La trattativa di Ginevra si conferma dunque per quel che l’Iran voleva che fosse: una perdita di tempo, che permette ai pasdaran e agli ayatollah di procedere indisturbati a dotarsi di una bomba atomica. E’ l’ennesima conferma del fallimento pieno della “svolta” impressa da Barack Obama, della fine della politica della carota e del bastone avviata da Gorge W. Bush e il risultato ovvio della fine di ogni minaccia di ritorsione all’Iran –inclusa quella militare- che il nuovo presidente ha voluto. Di rinvio in rinvio, Obama ha dato al programma militare atomico iraniano più di un anno di tempo per svilupparsi indisturbato (Bush sospese la sua politica basata su trattative, ma anche concrete minacce militari, nell’autunno 2008, proprio nell’eventualità che Obama vincesse le elezioni e che la vanificasse) e ora continua a spostare in avanti la data per una verifica finale. Prima inidcò fine settembre, poi fine ottobre, ora si andrà a dicembre e poi si continuerà temporeggiando. Una prova di debolezza straordinaria e di cecità assoluta che Obama sta dando al mondo, dimostrando però di essere pienamente meritevole del Nobel per la Pace. Come el Baradei. [qui]

Links:
Arab agreement with Israel on the Iran nuclear bomb project and concomitant disagreement with the Obama Administration on that issue.
Curiously, while the American president, Mr Obama, seems to be consciously allowing Iran to develop a nuclear bomb, some Europeans, so often derided by Americans in the past for softness on threats to Western civilization, find that it is Obama and his administration who are soft on the threat represented by Ahmadinajad's Iran, not only Carlo Panella in Italy but in France, President Sarkozy, Francois Thual, Richard Darmon, Michel Gurfinkiel and others.

Several years ago I wrote here that it seemed that nobody really important in the West wanted to stop the Iranian bomb and therefore, that that bomb would become real. Unfortunately, my ominous prophecy was right. I don't always want to be right [also see here]

UPDATING12-10-2009
Barry Rubin on Obama's collaboration in building the Iranian nuclear bomb [here]
Prof Jean-Pierre Bensimon argues that "the cost of a nuclear Iran is certainly infinitely greater than what Western experts now assign to it" while "an ideology of appeasement is now winning a decisive victory among the Western decision-makers," including Obama [in French ici]
Ari Shavit of HaArets faults Obama's leadership [here]. ". . . Obama is liable to leave our children a world in a state of nuclear vertigo. If the Nobel laureate does not want to be remembered as the leader in whose term of office the nuclear genie escaped from the bottle . . . must gain his composure immediately. He must use the little time remaining to lead a resolute campaign against the extremist forces acquiring nuclear capability."
12-14-2009 A document in Farsi describing a detonator for a nuclear bomb said to have been found [here]
12-17-2009 Carlo Panella writes [qui] that Obama should stop thinking that harassing Israel will solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear bomb project.
12-19-09 Former French official Olivier Debouzy in the Wall Street Journal [here]

Obama Administration Trying to Sell a Dead Horse -- The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

UPDATING 5-8-2009 see at bottom

The Peace Process -- Peace of Mind for Judeophobes

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a dead horse. It doesn't work. Iran is a signatory to the treaty, yet, as everyone with any sense knows, Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons, which is a violation of the treaty. And the so-called "international community" does nothing to stop them. Several Euro powers have been negotiating with Iran for years to have them stop the nuclear weapons development. Yet nothing concrete is done. Several deadlines have been set. When Iran fails or refuses to meet a deadline, a new, later deadline is set, or more concessions are offered by the Euro side. Now Obama, the boy genius and would-be messiah, wants "tough diplomacy" with Iran. Maybe he thinks that he has a magic secret that the seasoned Euro diplomats are unaware of. Yet his administration is against force or the threat of force against Iran's serious violations of the treaty, not to mention Iran's violation of international law by making threats to destroy Israel. So the NPT treaty is a dead horse. Yet one of Obama's dimbulb underlings is trying to sell that dead horse. Presumably she is speaking for the Administration.
What do we make of a government that tries to sell dead horses?

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.
....

What good is the treaty if it does not in fact prevent nuclear proliferation? Since it is obvious that the treaty doesn't work -- in fact any treaty can be violated if no one tries to enforce it-- then why is the Obama regime pushing it? If the USA opposes nuclear proliferation and upholds international law, then why has it not taken effective forceful action against Iran, starting perhaps with severe sanctions but not ending there, if necessary? Why foreclose the use of force from the start? Does the Obama Administration --or the Bush regime before it-- really mean to oppose the ayatollahs getting the bomb?

The report goes on:

She [Gottemoeller] declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would press Israel to join the treaty.

A senior White House official said the administration considered the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated "apples and oranges."

Asked by The Washington Times whether the administration would press Israel to join the NPT, the official said, "We support universal adherence to the NPT. [It] remains a long-term goal."

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
[Eli Lake, Washington Times, see full article here]

Instead of trying to stop proliferation, precisely proliferation to an aggressive state motivated by a fanatic ideology, it seems that Obama & Co. want Iran to have the Bomb and want to take it away from Israel.
- - - - - - -
For our reasoning as to why the Bush regime may have wanted Iran to have the Bomb, see here. For EU help for Iran's bomb see here. For Alan Abelson on "small nuclear wars" see here.
- - - - - - -
UPDATING 5-8-2009 A study from Israel's Institute for National Security Studies about the weaknesses of the NPT.

Does Anybody Care If Iran Gets the Bomb???

UPDATING 11-3-2009 at bottom

Politicians have been talking about the Iranian bomb for years. As I recall, Yits'haq Rabin was warning about it before he died in 1995. Yet the mad Mullahs of Teheran keep on advancing towards possession of a Bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] kvetches and frets and wrings its hands and complains either that it can't do anything or that everything is OK and not to worry. The UN Security Council passed a few resolutions. It even set some deadlines. But most of the deadlines were violated by Teheran, while the UN Security Council and other high officials, like the Iran contact group or whatever it's called, then set new deadlines, giving the mullahs another chance. So does anybody important really care about Iran having the Bomb?

La Repubblica wrote up the IAEA meeting from March 2006 when the IAEA finally submitted the Iran case to the Security Council. La Repubblica points out some background: The first clashes between the Agency and Iran took place in 2003 when the IAEA reported an Iranian program for enriching uranium going back 18 years which Teheran had apparently hidden until then. If so, then the warnings by Israeli leaders over an Iranian bomb on the way were not given attention or not taken seriously.

At this point, I should mention that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty [NPT]. Hence, its development of the Bomb is a violation of a treaty, whereas other states that are believed to have a bomb [Israel] or have recently unveiled their bomb [India, Pakistan] were not signatories to the NPT treaty. Again, it is curious that Israel was warning of an Iranian bomb since Rabin's time and was apparently ignored or not taken seriously. Further, while the USA harshly criticized Teheran's nuclear policy, the Europeans wanted to mediate. The Europeans, such as Germany and Britain, have extensive trade with Iran but no one would suspect them of molding their policy to fit their trading interests and profits. After all, Iran also claims to be developing long range rockets that could reach Europe as well as Israel. Would the EU states endanger their populations for the sake of short term profits from trade with Iran in strategic goods, materials and equipment? Of course, we wouldn't expect the EU to care at all about the welfare of the Jews in Israel.

Iran, to be sure, claims that it intends to use nuclear power for "civilian" not military purposes. At the same time, Iran's fuhrer, Ahmadinejad, threatens to destroy Israel. Which promise or threat are we to believe??

At the March 2006 meeting of the IAEA board of governors, Gregory Schulte, the US delegate,

listed what he considers the overwhelming proofs about the real intentions of the Islamic Republic. Schulte argued in his speech that, "Iran announced to the Agency that it intends to install this year the first 3,000 P-1 centrifuges at the Natanz generating center. It has accumulated a stock of 85 tons of UF6 (Uranium hexafluoride), that once enriched can produce material for about 10 nuclear bombs. . . Everything," he thundered, "makes us clearly understand that Iran is determined to acquire a large-scale enrichment capacity. In January the Agency came into possession of a 15-page document in which the procedures were indicated for transforming enriched uranium into hemispheres of uranium metal. And the IAEA inspectors had no doubts as to the fact that this information served specifically to produce nuclear bombs. This is not even to mention the project on Green Salt, the test on explosions, the plans to obtain a long-range missile capable of transporting nuclear warheads. The Iranians swear that they want to use nuclear power for peaceful and research purposes only. We want to believe them. But why do they then insist on making efforts to elaborate the system of centrifuges? This is the basis for developing uranium enrichment and arriving at building atomic bombs."
[Daniele Mastrogiacomo, La Repubblica 9 March 2006]

This all sounds very ominous. But did even the US government really care? What has it done to demonstrate its concern?

While the American delegate had emphasized that the Iranian endeavors could easily be directed toward building the Bomb, the Iranian delegate, Ali Asghar Sotaniyyah, claimed that the report of Agency head Barada'i was:

too technical and too political.

Then he went on to say:

The nuclear events should have been treated simply as a technical question.

As if the possibility of bellicose jihad worshippers' getting the Bomb could ever be considered a simple "technical question"!!!

Sotaniyyah went on that

All the annoying political information [supplied by the US delegate] has deceived the international community. [That is, only the Americans were deceiving the world, not the Iranians]

It's not clear to me why Sotaniyyah cared to complain that the Americans had "deceived" the international community. Supposing that the American delegate was believed, how much did the world care about the possibility of an Iranian Bomb?

Meanwhile, US delegate Schulte also implored the board of governers of the IAEA:

The time has come that IAEA reacquire its power and that the Security Council give it proper instruments. [Daniele Mastrogiacomo, La Repubblica, 9 March 2006]

Here Schulte wanted the Security Council to authorize special IAEA inspections in Iran.
The board of governors of the IAEA agreed to finally send the Iran case to the Security Council. This decision led to threats from Teheran made by Javad Vaidi, the chief Iranian negotiator:

The USA has the means to cause damage and pain, but they are also susceptible to feeling suffering and pain. If they choose this route, then they take the responsibility on themselves.

Teheran also threatened revenge by means of oil. However, the Iranians

alternated threats with new calming statements. Iran conjured up fire and flames, but then said that they were ready to restart negotiations with the IAEA inspectors. [Mastrogiacomo, La Repubblica, 9 III 2006]

Note the Iranian tactic. First, they make horrendous threats. Then, they say something conciliatory. Meanwhile, the Europeans asked Iran to suspend all enrichment activity, in accord with Agency directives. Barada'i looked unhappy. Then the Iranians

announced that they were ready to return to the negotiating table. But on one condition that they consider "irreversible": that they continue, even on a reduced scale, the activity of nuclear research and development. [Mastrogiacomo]

Even as they set aside their threats and agree to negotiate, they are chiseling away at previous commitments, both to the NPT and to the IAEA. What has the "international community" done since March 2006 to show that it is truly bothered by an Iranian bomb?

postscript: Dear No`am Chomsky and other supposed "ultraleftists" and assorted friends of humanity have turned up in Iran to express support and/or understanding for Nazi Ahmadinejad.

UPDATING: Iranian fuehrer, President

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Tuesday Tuesday [June 5, 2007] that it was "too late" to stop Iran's nuclear program and warned the US and its allies not to push for new UN sanctions on Iran, which he compared to a lion sitting quietly in a corner.
"We advise them not to play with the lion's tail." . . . prompting applause from a room of reporters, Iranian officials and foreign dignitaries at a Teheran news conference.
"It is too late to stop the progress of Iran. . . Iran has passed the point where they wanted Iran to stop.". . .
Addressing the West Ahmadinajad said that a third round of sanctions will only "make things harder for you and distance you from resolving the issue. . . We advise them to give up stubbornness and childish games.". . .
The country's nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said this week that Iran's disputes over its nuclear program could be settled in the coming weeks if the UN Security Council drops preparations to debate the third round of sanctions.
[Michael Weissenstein, Associated Press, printed in Jerusalem Post, 6 June 2007]

Note the bullying tactics used by the Iranian leaders. At the same time, they hold out the promise of resolution or settlement of the issue if only the Iranian leaders are obeyed.
- - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 11-3-2009 Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal surveys the history of Western pretending by "diplomacy" to get Iran to stop its nuclear bomb project from 2003 to 11/2009 [here]
- - - - - - -
Coming: More on Jim Baker and US policy towards Israel, more on Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, and more.