An Iranian woman and her son walk past Shahab-2 (L) and Shahab-3 missiles on display in front of a large portrait of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a square in south Tehran. Photo: ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images
The Farsi version of this article appeared in Iran Diplomacy on 14 October 2017; Written by Farhad Shahabi, International Security and Arms Control Specialist;
The English version is provided by the author for SouthFront
In recent years, all references by the West in relation to Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme, have been constantly and invariably accusatory, using terms such as “nuclear threat” or “nuclear danger”. The signing of the nuclear accord or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) too has not been followed by a reduction in the use of such accusatory terminology by the West, both in formal and informal settings. Recent examples are the statements from the British Foreign Minister, Boris Johnson, who whilst announcing his country’s support for the JCPA and emphasising the importance by all parties (particularly the US) to uphold their commitment to the nuclear accord, states in relation to Iran that “The nuclear deal was a crucial agreement that neutralised its nuclear threat”; and the statement from the head of EU’s Security and Foreign Policy, Federica Mogherini, who responding to the worrisome likelihood of the US leaving the agreement, comments that “The deal has prevented, continues to prevent, and will continue to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons“.
It is to be noted that Iran, very soon after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, reiterated its commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition to this and despite many shortcomings of the NPT and the nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime, particularly its extremely discriminatory nature, the leader of the Revolution, issued a Fatwa banning at the highest level of state authority and without any proviso and discrimination, the production, storage, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.
Also in practice, looking at the tumultuous history of the 8 year imposed war by Saddam as the acting agent of the West against the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is possible to find numerous evidence that in the most pressing circumstances of the war and even in the face of terrible war crimes by the enemy (who was the aggressor in this war), such as its extensive and repeated use of chemical weapons, bombing of cities and other residential areas in Iran, Iranian armed forces never resorted to WMD and were extremely averse to the use similar methods and to retaliation in kind.
Those who accuse Iran of being a nuclear threat are countries who themselves are not merely “accused” but are definitely and undeniably “guilty” of having both threatened and used methods and weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Some of these Western countries who unbelievably shamelessly accuse Iran of posing a threat to international peace and security, have a shameful and extensive record of egregious crimes against humanity and war crimes, such as the nuclear bombing of Japan, the occupation and chemical bombardment of Vietnam, supporting the illegal occupation of Palestine and the violent repression of Palestinians, the persuasion, arming and total support of Saddam and his war crimes against Iran, the intentional downing of the Iranian passenger plane over the Persian Gulf and the public praise of the perpetrators of this unprecedented war crime, and of course, the keeping and continued expansion of their nuclear weapons production.
And finally, following the nuclear deal, all of the eight reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based on extremely and painstakingly meticulous and extensive inspections of Iran’s nuclear activities, have testified, without exception, Iran’s total commitment to and observance of the nuclear deal. Considering this undisputed and clear evidence of Iran’s commitment, the accusations of Iran’s nuclear threat is completely unwarranted and unfair, because they attempt at creating the impression in the minds of their audience that Iran is prone to deceitfully violate the NPT, and that it stands guilty of violation and of creating crisis in the international community.
It is therefore necessary that through diplomatic channels and in the first instance through discussion with the P5+1 members, particularly the EU members, to insist that such false labelling and falsely accusatory and humiliating terminology in relation to Iran has to be stopped. Clearly, terminology such as the removal of “worries” or “concerns” in relation to Iran’s nuclear programme, are considerably less emphatic and offensive falsehoods than words such as the removal of “threat” or “danger” of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Currently in circumstances that, as stated by the German Foreign Minister, the US behaviour towards Iran has pushed Europeans towards Russian or Chinese positions, there might be a suitable opportunity to address this difficulty.
I am for preserving the JCPOA but I am curious if anyone has an explanation regarding the uranium particles that were found at Parchin … https://i-hls.com/archives/70416 The hawks are having fits over this saying that this proves that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. 1. Is this the sign of an older weapons program that was suspended in 2003. Perhaps the decay of the elements could even prove that this was older rather than newer work. 2. Is there a reasonable explanation for this origin other than for nuclear weapons development?
Not true! Iran volunteered to give The IAEA access to Parchin military site twice in 2005. The IAEA was allowed to inspect ANY SECTOR of its own choosing in Parchin, which it did. The IAEA found no trace of nuclear material. The IAEA statement said:
“The Agency was given free access to those buildings and their surroundings and was allowed to take environmental samples, the results of which did not indicate the presence of nuclear material, nor did the Agency see any relevant dual use equipment or materials in the locations visited”.
Again, according to Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor:
“At the time, it [Parchin] was divided into four geographical sectors by the Iranians. Using satellite and other data, inspectors were allowed by the Iranians to choose any sector, and then to visit any building inside that sector. Those 2005 inspections included more than five buildings each, and soil and environmental sampling. They yielded nothing suspicious, the IAEA has visited Parchin twice before and found nothing of concern, possibly because they were targeting the wrong building(s) before, or because there is no actual evidence of nuclear materials-related research at Parchin”. Of course to claim that the IAEA “were targeting the wrong buildings” is redundant and ludicrous, because it had been given permission to inspect anywhere it wanted, the logical conclusion of which for anyone with an ounce of brain ad integrity is that had Iran had anything to hide it would not have allowed free access to any sector of IAEA’s choosing!
Yes, I know that the Iranians gave access to Parchin. In the last inspection where the Iranians collected samples under IAEA instructions they found two particles of uranium isotopes that were not natural in origin.
I’m not a ball buster. If this was related to an early stage R&D program prior to 2003 or if there is an explanation where this can be related to conventional weapons program or contamination, fine. I was just wondering if anyone, other than a neocon hawk had an explanation for it. That’s all. Chances are that someone in Iran had done some studies back when Saddam was in power and they thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.
This is an article by Gareth Porter addressing this issue and the quote from the footnotes by the IAEA which received scant attention by the media should answer your query: http://www.truth-out.org/ne…
“The major revelation in the IAEA’s final report is half-hidden in a footnote, the significance of which is not explained. The footnote says, “The results identified two particles that appear to be chemically man-modified particles of natural uranium. This small number of particles with such elemental composition and morphology is not sufficient to indicate a connection with the use of nuclear material.”
What that footnote about the environmental samples reveals, in effect, is that no hydrodynamic tests were conducted at the Parchin site. Any such test would have involved natural uranium metal, and would have been picked up in the environmental samples, as Kelley observed in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute note.
Despite being compelled to retreat from earlier claims, however, the document seeks to defend its embrace of the Parchin cylinder story by attacking Iran’s insistence that the building at Parchin had been used all along for storing chemicals for high explosives. The agency argues the environmental samples “did not detect explosive compounds or their precursors that would have indicated that the building had been used for the long-term storage of chemicals for explosives.”
But it is not clear that the absence of traces of chemicals in environmental swipes is proof that the chemicals have not been stored in the building. The IAEA’s environmental sampling has been geared to detecting nuclear-related particles. And drums of chemicals wouldn’t necessarily leave any residue that could be detected”
.
This is an article by Gareth Porter addressing this issue and the quote from the footnotes by the IAEA which received scant attention by the media should answer your query: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33914-iaea-s-final-report-on-iran-nuclear-program-defends-discredited-parchin-cylinder-claims
“The major revelation in the IAEA’s final report is half-hidden in a footnote, the significance of which is not explained. The footnote says, “The results identified two particles that appear to be chemically man-modified particles of natural uranium. This small number of particles with such elemental composition and morphology is not sufficient to indicate a connection with the use of nuclear material.”
What that footnote about the environmental samples reveals, in effect, is that no hydrodynamic tests were conducted at the Parchin site. Any such test would have involved natural uranium metal, and would have been picked up in the environmental samples, as Kelley observed in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute note.
Despite being compelled to retreat from earlier claims, however, the document seeks to defend its embrace of the Parchin cylinder story by attacking Iran’s insistence that the building at Parchin had been used all along for storing chemicals for high explosives. The agency argues the environmental samples “did not detect explosive compounds or their precursors that would have indicated that the building had been used for the long-term storage of chemicals for explosives.”
But it is not clear that the absence of traces of chemicals in environmental swipes is proof that the chemicals have not been stored in the building. The IAEA’s environmental sampling has been geared to detecting nuclear-related particles. And drums of chemicals wouldn’t necessarily leave any residue that could be detected” .
Thanks for the reference. So it was literally two particles and the stories in the western MSM was basically hysterical spin.
All of the IAEA reports are blown out of proportion like the ‘exceeding heavy water limits’. 1. If you do the math, it was less than a 1/10 of a percent, 2. the JCPOA only gives estimates, doesn’t set hard limits. The transparency we get from the JCPOA sets up these types of abusive claims from detractors. Fred Fleitz who writes for the national review is the absolute worst person on this subject. He uses his CIA analyst credentials to bolster his lies. I call him out because he should know better. He was probably really in the Information War branch of the CIA.
As long as the US officials can talk, they will never stop bullying everybody; it’s in their blood and their culture. The USA results totally incapable of living in peace with other civilizations.
So, Iranian friends, just stop really listening to them (i.e. ban Fox news and CNN just as they banned you, label them officially as ‘foreign hostile agents’), or apply them an improved diplomatic venom.
Its easy for Iran to adhere to the JCPOA because Iran was never developing Nukes to start with..Even Mossad officials have repeatedly admit that..But for some strange reason even pro Iranian individuals tend to insinuate that Iran was developing Nukes but stopped when the JCPOA agreement was reached..Again Irans nuke program was always peaceful..
Iran’s programme stopped in 2003 , without any JCPOA, it was purely Iranian initiative , semi-religious in nature.
Something is going on under the table, not too obvious but not too secret either. One thing is what we think and another thing is what we know.
In fact, no credible evidence has ever been presented by the US and its allies about Iran engaging in nuclear weaponisation programme. None at all!
Therenis going to be no other option left for Iranians, they will be basically forced to start the nuclear bomb program.
Not so! Nuclear weaponisation is not in Iran’s defensive doctrine. The production, storage, use and threat of nuclear weapons and indeed ALL weapons of mass destruction are considered as a grave sin and forbidden in the Islamic Republic.
You have managed to highlight the hypocrisy of the western world, well written Farhad Shahabi!
Excellent and timely article challenging the falsifying language of Western politicians and their subordinate media on the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, its conventional missile programme, its commitment to fight Israeli/Western backed terrorism in the region, and in defence of its legitimate security rights in the face of imperialist ploys and onslaught particularly targeting Iran as their ultimate regional obstacle in the Middle East.