ATS: Bush Administration Lies about Iran and its Nuclear Program

In a statement on PBS's Newhour program to interviewer Margaret Warner, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns tells a falsehood about the Iran and its national policies.



Another day, another lie. To be completely honest, I'm desensitized by the daily manipulation. America is being lied to daily, yet we don't want to give up our comfortable way of life for what matters most, freedom, justice and the true American way. As long as the American people do nothing about these blatant lies, the government will continue to push even more falsehoods on the public until they become truths.

The agreement:

Iran reaffirms that, in accordance with Article II of the NPT, it does not and will
not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. It commits itself to full cooperation and
transparency with the IAEA. Iran will continue implementing voluntarily the Additional
Protocol pending ratification.

To build further confidence, Iran has decided, on a voluntary basis, to continue
and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities,
and specifically: the manufacture and import of gas centrifuges and their components;
the assembly, installation, testing or operation of gas centrifuges; work to undertake any
plutonium separation, or to construct or operate any plutonium separation installation;
and all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation. The IAEA will be
notified of this suspension and invited to verify and monitor it. The suspension will be
implemented in time for the IAEA to confirm before the November Board that it has
been put into effect. The suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a
mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements.
The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure
and not a legal obligation.

Sustaining the suspension, while negotiations on a long-term agreement are
under way, will be essential for the continuation of the overall process. In the context
of this suspension, the E3/EU and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations, with a view
to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements. The agreement
will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for
peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and
economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues.
A steering committee will meet to launch these negotiations in the first half of
December 2004 and will set up working groups on political and security issues,
technology and cooperation, and nuclear issues. The steering committee shall meet again
within three months to receive progress reports from the working groups and to
move ahead with projects and/or measures that can be implemented in advance of an
overall agreement.
In the context of the present agreement and noting the progress that has been made in
resolving outstanding issues, the E3/EU will henceforth support the Director General
reporting to the IAEA Board as he considers appropriate in the framework of the
implementation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol.
The E3/EU will support the IAEA Director General inviting Iran to join the
Expert Group on Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
Once suspension has been verified, the negotiations with the EU on a Trade
and Cooperation Agreement will resume. The E3/EU will actively support the opening
of Iranian accession negotiations at the WTO.

Irrespective of progress on the nuclear issue, the E3/EU and Iran confirm their
determination to combat terrorism, including the activities of Al Qa'ida and other
terrorist groups such as the MeK. They also confirm their continued support for the
political process in Iraq aimed at establishing a constitutionally elected Government.

The exchange:

MARGARET WARNER: Thanks for being with us. Let's start with today's news. How significant or how did you read what the Iranian foreign minister said today about the fact that Iran really is willing to continue talks with the Europeans?

NICHOLAS BURNS: Well, it's good to hear the statement by the Iranian foreign minister, but I must say that we're a little bit skeptical. Iran for 18 years withheld the truth about its nuclear weapons activities and enrichment programs from the IAEA.

The United States is fully supportive of the efforts of the European governments to try to negotiate an agreement with Iran but that negotiation is very specific.

Iran must cease and dismantle all of its nuclear fuel cycle activities and it must end forever its attempt to build a nuclear weapons program behind the guise of what it says is a peaceful nuclear energy program.

So while it is good the Iranians want to continue the negotiations, we would certainly like to see some degree of seriousness by Iran in those negotiations itself.

MARGARET WARNER: But as you know, I mean, Iran says that under the treaty, it has an inalienable right to continue pursuing this technology for civilian purposes.

MARGARET WARNER: But as you know, I mean, Iran says that under the treaty, it has an inalienable right to continue pursuing this technology for civilian purposes.

NICHOLAS BURNS: But the agreement that Iran entered into November of last year in Paris with Britain, France and Germany, is that it will not just suspend its nuclear fuel cycle activities. It will actually lead to cessation and dismantling.

That means that Iran would not be able to have the possibility to enrich or produce fissile material which, as you know, is the essential ingredient in the capacity to build a nuclear device.

Given Iran's track record over the last 18 years or so, and given the fact that it is a state that's been highly irresponsible in the way it's interacted with all of its neighbors, we simply cannot afford, the world cannot afford to see Iran acquire this type of capability.

OK, so where was the lie again?

The lie:

Burns' statement is untrue. The Nov. 15 treaty, a public document, does not stipulate any agreement on Iran's part to dismantle any part of its peaceful nuclear development program. Moreover, Iran's cessation of enrichment activity was specified as voluntary in the treaty.

Burns' remark is designed to show that Iran is in violation of a treaty subsequent to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), thus perpetuating the Bush administration portrait of Iran as an outlaw nation and "treaty violator." What Burns failed to point out is that Iran also subscribed to the following unambiguous statement in the November treaty:

"Iran reaffirms that, in accordance with Article II of the NPT, it does not and will not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. It commits itself to full cooperation and transparency with the IAEA. Iran will continue implanting voluntarily the Additional Protocol [for enhanced inspections] pending ratification."

Simulacra...that was no lie...

This is part of the agreement...

To build further confidence, Iran has decided, on a voluntary basis, to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, and specifically: the manufacture and import of gas centrifuges and their components; the assembly, installation, testing or operation of gas centrifuges; work to undertake any plutonium separation, or to construct or operate any plutonium separation installation; and all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation.

Taken from the excerpt given by HowardRoark

If anyone is lying it is you trying to turn this into a political tool.


[edit on 7-5-2005 by Muaddib]

Hmm. Seems to me that 'on a voluntary basis' means that they choose to do so of there own free will. It also implies that they can change their mind at any point in the future. There actions were afterall, on a voluntary basis.

[edit on 5/7/05 by Kidfinger]

That is true, but the voluntary suspension is the key to the whole agreement.

Voluntary or not, Enforceable or not, that is what they agreed to do.

What part of this statement:

But the agreement that Iran entered into November of last year in Paris with Britain, France and Germany, is that it will not just suspend its nuclear fuel cycle activities. It will actually lead to cessation and dismantling. That means that Iran would not be able to have the possibility to enrich or produce fissile material which, as you know, is the essential ingredient in the capacity to build a nuclear device.

is untrue?

Your source is biased and wrong.


Edited to fix silly spelling errors

[edit on 7-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

Volentary or not, Enforcible or not, that is what they agreed to do.

Well, the fact is, it was voluntary. Therefor, they are able to withdraw from any voluntary agreement. There was nothing in the agreement that states otherwise. In fact, the statement on a voluntary basis makes the whole agreement a moot point anyway. Its like saying I choose not to pursue hunting, then two years later, I am forced to do so in order to survive.

I can see why people are afraid of Iran, or any country for that matter, having nukes, but everyone better get use to the idea. As long as Bush is throwing his weight around the globe, the intimidated countries will continue to seek a deturent to his force.

[edit on 5/7/05 by Kidfinger]

I don't see where it says 'dismantle'.

But, doesn't really matter anyway. We all know that its 'work as usual' in Iran. Sorry, but the above agreement doesn't mean a damn thing to the JO's running Iran.
And they'll probably end up giving their technology to Osama Bin Suckhead, just so they can have some satisfaction in knowing they supplied the nuke that goes off in one of our major cities.


Intimidated.....I love how you people think, crack me up

They agreed to do it voluntarily.... The agreement wasn't made that they could do it if they wanted or not, or that they could change their minds if they wanted to... There is a big difference. If you agree to do something voluntarily, you are saying you are going to do it on your own free will. If you don't do it, you are breaking the agreement.


[edit on 7-5-2005 by Muaddib]

Why is this up for consideration?

Burns lied

The Iranians Agreement
The suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements.
The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation.

Burns
But the agreement that Iran entered into November of last year in Paris with Britain, France and Germany, is that it will not just suspend its nuclear fuel cycle activities. It will actually lead to cessation and dismantling.

That means that Iran would not be able to have the possibility to enrich or produce fissile material which, as you know, is the essential ingredient in the capacity to build a nuclear device.

I think Mr.Burns has read a different agreement than what the Iranians signed up to. There is no reference to dismantling anything in the agreement. It only concerns "suspension"

Suspension: A postponement, as of a judgment, opinion, or decision

The suspension is a sign of good faith until a long term agreement can be written up regarding Irans nuclear program. It never states that Iran agrees to dismantle its nuclear program. But Mr.Burns clearly states that the agreement pertains to Iran dismantling its nuclear program, which as can clearly be seen is false.

Is this concocted agreement breaking by the Iranians being floated as a reason to attack Iran by the Bush Administration?



See that American flag behind Republican Mr. Nicholas Burns from the United States Department of State? He represents you, the American people, and he is lying through his teeth on national television. Doesnt that p*ss you off even slightly?

U.S State Department Web Site

[edit on 8/5/05 by subz]

I doubt highly that Condelezza Rice told this guy to lie, so no it doesn't p*ss me off that (one guy not the government) this guy apparently doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's funny how people like to pick on the U.S. for not being honest when Iran and North Korea pretty much invented the lie, so to spreak.

"Oh, our nuclear program is peaceful"

As peaceful as a nuke going off in N.Y. or L.A.

Why don't you try jumping down their throats for a bit

The Iranians are having their throats jumped down. They have been inspected frequently by the IAEA. They have been in talks with the EU for months now. They are being forced to adhere to the NPT which is more than can be said about Britian, France and the United States (disarmament is part of the NPT for us and we have not complied)

That side of the argument is being dealt with. The hawks in the Bush administration, however, are not being dealt with. The rhetoric coming out of Washington is unfounded and unwarranted.

The reason the United States is copping flak over this is due to its economic treatment of the truth and its thinly veiled desires for regime change in the Iranian Republic. This is unacceptable behaviour and has to stop.

Claiming Burns's statement is just one person who doesnt speak for the Bush Administration is a cop out. Of course he speaks for the Bush administration. Do you think that Ms. Rice or Mr. Bush would allow him to say what he wants? Please, I give you more credit than to think thats correct.

They are fishing for reasons to invade Iran and to have some semblance of justification for it.

'thinly veiled'? I think damn near everyone on ATS knows that regime change is going to happen in Iran......good, it needs to.

The problems we have with Iran, regime change is inevitable. Does Bush have to say it? I think it comes with the standing we have 'change your ways, or we'll change them for you'. That might be putting it rather harshly but, thats basically what is boiles down ta.

We are not playing games with the Iranian Government. They need not to threaten the U.S. or Isreal (which they have said "Death to America") with nuclear weapons. Or anyone for that matter AND they oppress their peoples. Don't they have a right to live THEIR lives?


I honesty don't understand why good honest Americans would not want anyone else to share in the freedoms they cherish. Again, that might be harsh, but damn, the Iranian government wants us dead...that doesn't bother you?

Hardcore said
I honesty don't understand why good honest Americans would not want anyone else to share in the freedoms they cherish. Again, that might be harsh, but damn, the Iranian government wants us dead...that doesn't bother you?

Wanting someone to have something and force upon them to take it (like it or not) are two different things.

When is the US going to invade the Vatican? They don't have a democracy.

HardcoreAmerican, sorry to break it to you but regime change is illegal. Any country that tries to forcibly change the government of another country is breaing international law.

The Iranians had a popular revolution in the 1970's and they are not oppressed any more than you Americans are with Christianity.

Want to see how YOU are opressed? Go try and marry a man if you wish. Terminally ill? Try and end your own life with dignity. Want more than one wife? You'll be ARRESTED! Wheres the logical basis in these laws? Oh wait, there are none. Does that mean Christianity is being forced on all Americans? YES

Should we have regime change in America because of it? NO

"Death to America"? Hows that any different to Bush's Axis of Evil speech? Its all relative. Where the difference actually lies is that Bush has actualy carried out his threats. Remember Afghanistan and Iraq? Death to Iraqis! Death to Afghanis! Those were supposedly retalitory invasions directly linked to 9/11. How many thousands of innocent people died in them to placate the Americans fury over 9/11?

Basically its not up to Americans how Iranians live their lives. Leave them alone, if they revolt AGAIN then by all means support the revolutionaries. But untill then butt the hell out.

Great work supressing this news item. Don't forget to let the DHS know your collar size, your brown shirts are being mailed out next week.

They agreed to do it voluntarily.... The agreement wasn't made that they could do it if they wanted or not, or that they could change their minds if they wanted to... There is a big difference. If you agree to do something voluntarily, you are saying you are going to do it on your own free will. If you don't do it, you are breaking the agreement.

"The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure
and not a legal obligation"

that's excerpted from the text. They aren't breaking any agreement, because it isnt part of an agreement, just merely a gesture by the iranian government to build confidence, it is not part of any legal stipulation that they have to do so.

You really can't spin this THAT MUCH to actually make this woman look like she isn't lying just because she is part of the administration??? it reminds me of bill o'reilly and many others on this forum saying that canadians serving in US armed forces in Vietnam did mean that Canada sent troops to Vietnam just to help defend Ann Coulter's ignorance

[edit on 9-5-2005 by drfunk]

mythatsabigprobe

Supression is right. I've never even seen this mentality on ATS before, ever. Actually, I don't even know where to go from here. My initial decision was to make an elaborate post detailing why the Bush administration clearly lied (although I think some members of ATS already illustrated this point for me).

What I just saw on this thread was the definition of slave mentality. One person states that it's untrue, and everyone else follows the lead of that one person. This clearly shows the inability for most to actually think for themselves, they would rather prescribe to the 'herd' mentality without even bothering to gather evidence so that they may come to their own conclusions.

I still can't believe this, I'm disappointed in this ATSNN because it has the ability to supress news coverage and it has been achieving this since the new model was created.

I'm just going to stop at that before this post turns into a novel. In short, I can't believe what just happened on this thread.

Some people are destined to be slaves.

From what I understand, the lie is about the word voluntary.
Iran agreed in doing something voluntary, and then when America does not see them do this they act as if Iran is breaking the agreement.

In my opinion it was a pretty smart move of Iran to put that word voluntary in the agreement, as at it stands now, if you think about it Iran didn't break any agreement yet, allthough America would like the world to think they did.

Sim: don't be too surprised about this, I think a lot of people just didn't read this carefully enough to detect the lie in this wordgame.