Nuclear Weapons & Waste: In Depth: Report
Iran Develops Nuclear Technologies in Secret for 18 Years
A report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency and obtained by NRDC describes technological advances and a policy of concealment.
On November 10, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a 30-page confidential report on Iran's nuclear activities. The report, which the agency sent to its board of governors and to 20 governments (NRDC also obtained a copy -- see below), reveals that for the past 18 years Iran has secretly developed technologies for producing weapon-usable highly enriched uranium and plutonium. During that time, the report says, Iran violated its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and falsified declarations to the agency regarding safeguards required under the treaty.
According to the report, "Iran's policy of concealment continued until last month, with cooperation being limited and reactive, and information being slow in coming, changing and contradictory. While most of the breaches identified to date have involved limited quantities of nuclear material, they have dealt with the most sensitive aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment and reprocessing."
Despite these findings, the report goes on to say that no evidence exists of a current weapons project in Iran, a conclusion that NRDC's nuclear experts dispute. "It's dumbfounding that the IAEA, after saying that Iran for 18 years had a secret effort to enrich uranium and separate plutonium, would turn around and say there was no evidence of a nuclear weapons program," said NRDC nuclear program director Tom Cochran in an interview with The New York Times. "If that's not evidence, I don't know what is."
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/iaeairan.aspNovember 16, 2003
Does the U.S. really want democracy in the ME? Majid Mohamadi
Long-term commitment to transforming the Middle East and making democracy have never been a pillar of U.S. foreign policy and it is hard to believe that it will be. The U.S. administrations basically do not want democracy
- any reading of it -in the Middle East. There is a huge gap between the rhetoric of democratization and the reality of the United States' actual
policy. The reasons are:
1. The U.S. administrations have been very comfortable living with full or partial autocracies in one form or the other in the region for a long time. They want to deal with one "big" guy or family in every state in the region. They do not want to get involved in working with
democracies due to their complexities in domestic and foreign policies. Do they really want another E.U. when dealing with the U.N. or other international institutions?
2. Democracies are not usually interested in long-term conflicts - other than the U.S.- when they are not directly attacked. How will the U.S. benefit from peace while military production for internal and external needs is one of the most profitable areas for American companies?
3. Supporting democracies is based on understanding and dialogue. The U.S. administrations usually talk the language of power not the language of mutual understanding even with the allies.
4. Local democracies are usually related to international trade. The largest Middle Eastern state, Iran, which has made the greatest genuine strides towards representative government is also under the greatest burden of US trade sanctions (and now Syria). Sanctions have a high correlation with the sanctioned state's policy toward Israel: more enmity toward Israel, more sanctions.
5. Have anyone heard about encompassing and well-funded U.S projects and programs in the area of economics, education and civil society in the region?. Have anyone heard about anything like this in Iran? But we have heard thousands of words and lip services from the U.S. officials about promotion of democracy in Iran. USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, Middle East Partnership Initiative and the like have usually other intentions, causes and functions than democratization.
6. Is it possible to promote democracy by overthrowing democrats (like coup against Mossadeq)? The U.S. administrations have usually capitulated any democratic movement in the region and radicalized them. Maybe they are seeking the paradox of "democracy without any democratic movement," put aside "democracy without democrats." The U.S. administrations consciously know that every democratic movement in the region would not be pro-U.S. Supporting democratic movements has never been the declared U.S. policy in the region. The U.S. wants clients and not colleagues.
7. If there really were free democracies in the Middle East, the unpopularity of the United States would likely have guaranteed that Washington would never have had any bases or support in the region.
8. The very low credibility of the US in the M.E is an important obstacle for real engagement in democratization from abroad. Even elites and modern strata like technocrats and university scholars and students cannot trust the U.S. administrations.
9. Developing democracy would be very effective through educating people to the real notions of democracy. Have anyone heard about the U.S. support for education in the region? Has the U.S. done anything about the millions of children that have no access to education or depend on the Islamic madrasas for receiving part of their daily nutritional needs?
10. The U.S. administration is not ready to push the democratization process in the region because it knows this could empower the Islamists.
11. No body in the administration talks about constitutional and judicial reforms with resort to civil society institutions but they talk about women's right or liberalization with resort to a mass society approach. Gradual democratization is impossible without constitutional and judicial reform.
12. The U.S. administrations have no idea about the kind of democracy that would fit in the region. Would it be " direct democracy", "guided democracy", "liberal democracy", "religious democracy", etc?
13. They want to sell this idea to the U.S. public that Israel is the only democratic state in the region and this justifies one-sided policy of the U.S. in blinded support for Israel. The non-democratic ME provide a handful of cases for this policy in the West. This is an essential part of the neocons' presentational strategy which tries to
reshape the Middle East in line with Israel's perceived ideological and material needs.
Majid Mohammadi
http://news.gooya.com/english/archives/001816.php