IAEA Report: No Evidence Iran Diverted Any Nuclear Material for a Nuclear Weapons Program

page: 1
48
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+26 more 
posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I have come across a LiveLeak article that was full of information that I was totally unaware about. It's a compilation of recent announcements. Some of the sources are questionable so I'm alright with people nit picking as long as they attack the content, not the source. If you want to nit pick the source without acknowledging any of the content I may not respond to you. All the pages have plenty of links to mainstream sources so that may make it a bit more believable for some of the skeptics.

I'm approaching this with an open mind so feel free to share your opinion no matter what it may be.

I will provide some of the content with various links and share the main link at the end once I have presented this information. Please forgive me if it seems cluttered or unorganized but the main link feeds to many different sources. If you prefer you can skip down and click where it says "Main Link".

Okay so let's get started:


Mainstream media misrepresents latest International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) report. What that report actually says is there is no evidence
Iran has diverted any material for a nuclear weapons program. And even
more important: Much of Iran's uranium stockpile has been converted into
a form that would be very difficult to use in a nuclear weapon.

"The agency had found that Iran had "converted much of the new material
to metal form for use in a nuclear research reactor." The Washington
Post even quoted an unnamed Obama administration official acknowledging
that the converted 19.75 percent enriched uranium could not be "further
enriched to weapons-grade material." But this admission appears deep
within the article." ☛ IAEA Iran Report: Little New except Reduced
Bomb-Making Capacity - Tehran Bureau
FRONTLINE
PBS

www.pbs.org...


If you don't believe the above information, follow the above link and check it out.

So if this is true, the IAEA has even admitted that Iran's enrichment is not for weapon purposes, and are even saying that it cannot be further enriched. How about that huh?

Now a total separate outlet relaying the same information from different sources:


"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report made public
Thursday reveals that Iran has actually reduced the amount of 20-percent
enriched uranium available for any possible "breakout" to weapons grade
enrichment over the last three months rather than increasing it." ☛ IPS
-- IAEA Report Shows Iran Reduced Its Breakout Capacity
Inter Press
Service

IAEA Report Shows Iran Reduced Its Breakout Capacity


So we have what appears to be another reputable source saying the same thing but in much more detail, please visit the above link to verify or refute any of the information it provides. I believe this analysis to be believable but will not mind being corrected so please feel free to "debunk" any of the content provided.

The next source does appear to be a bit questionable and most of the links are to Wikipedia so I don't mind getting flamed over this one as long as you can prove any of the information to be incorrect. As I previously said I'm keeping an open mind here.


"Not only is any Uranium Iran has below weapons grade but, according to
the new IAEA report, Iran has today less enriched Uranium that could
quickly be converted into a nuclear weapon than it had in May 2012, the
time of the IAEA's last report (GOV/2012/23) on the issue." ☛ IAEA:
Iranian "Nuclear Danger" Decreased

www.moonofalabama.org...


I'm not an expert on this nuclear stuff so if the information in the above source is misleading or incorrect please feel free to explain how so. According to the source Iran does not even have enough uranium to produce one bomb.




Iran has now 10% less "dangerous stuff" in the form of further easily enrichable 20% UF6 than it had in May 2012. Further enriched this stockpile would not be enough by half to create even one nuclear device. The "imminent danger" of a "nuclear Iran" has thereby decreased.


I recommend you check out this interview with Clinton Bastin who is an expert on this subject:

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...

Here is a link to the IAEA reports if you have the time and energy to read through them:

www.iaea.org...

Even though I have kept an open mind, this information does reinforce my theory that the media and certain other organizations are lying to us about the Iranian nuclear program and that we must not believe everything we hear about the Iranian situation that our media sources are blindly repeating with these baseless claims that by the IAEA's own standards appear to be untrue.

Here is the Main Link to the LIveLeak article that contains all the sources that lead to this information.

So what's the verdict?




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Well, you can be sure no matter how much one can prove they are not using the material for bomb purposes, Israel and others will still consider them Guilty.

It is not what they are doing that these folks don't like, it is the fact that they exist at all. So you can be sure the loudest talkers will eventually try to take them out, whether the rest of the world cares or not.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by herenow
 


Yeah, it's a shame that most the world can't see through this facade. Well most the Western world, no one else is really buying into any of this anymore. After the Afghanistan and Iraq lies no one should believe anything that these war mongers say.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Yes, it is a dreadful shame, because there are many, many innocent lives at stake, all trying to just get by in this world just like you and me.

And their existence will be decided by a bunch of loud mouth, money hungry war mongers whose hearts are filled with hate.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by herenow
 


Our and their only hope is that the world wakes up to these lies and starts paying attention to the information that is readily available, but just needs to be searched upon.

They aren't going to come right out and say "we were lying" so they will use the media to twist the truth as they always have.

I'm with you, I'm tired of seeing these people playing with human life as if it's some kind of currency in a poker game.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I could be wrong but I've seen numerous stories in the past about how Iran denies inspectors access to key facilities that are suspected to be where these "weapons" may be getting created.. like military facilities tied to their nuclear program.

Basically what I get from all this is that the inspectors are saying they have no evidence.. but that could just simply be BECAUSE they've not been given unfettered access.

I'm still not so quick to determine whether or not Iran is guilty of having nuclear weapons ambitions.. but lets make sure we're looking at this correctly.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence" ... not an argument I like to use often ..



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


From what I gather, Iran has always been cooperational for the most part until sanctions started getting slapped on them, and then scientists getting assassinated, and then mysterious explosions. If you go back in time you will see that when these events started unfolding is when Iran started denying inspections to certain sites, and I don't blame them.

Information from the IAEA reports has been leaked out before they are even released so Iran has ever right to be weary of what details they share with the outside community. We all know that Iran likes to point the finger but I believe they may be right some of the time.

There was a report in the early 2000's that claimed Iran denied access, which was untrue, other than that they completely cooperated until the mysterious events started happening. You can verify the dates between the stopped inspections compared to the unfair sanctions and "mysterious events". The timeline should prove that it is no coincidence that Iran became less transparent.

I would have done the same if I were them.

That's just my two cents for what it's worth.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


The facility I'm referring to I believe is the Parchin facility among others, and it seems it's always been a place of contention.. Seems Iran has always been pretty open about allowing inspectors in the "civilian" nuclear areas but Parchin and a couple of other sites have been the ones that have been highly suspected.. it could be absolutely nothing of course... but it's those military spots that Iran has refused inspections..

From what I just read though it sounds like Iran is planning to allow IAEA into this particular place .. reported yesterday:

presstv.com...


The answer is that the IAEA expects Iran to allow its inspectors to visit an Iranian military site at Parchin, which falls outside the Safeguards Agreement between both sides. The agency’s request is simply based on reports given to the IAEA by obscure sources. Iran’s answer, on the other hand, has been totally unequivocal.


Sounds like Iran may allow them in .. but they will never be allowed in again ( part of the agreement )
edit on 9/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Thanks for that article as I do not recall every seeing that exact piece. My vague memory of the Parchin plan was that it was a military installation and that was part of the reason why they did not want inspectors there, especially after the series of assassinations and explosions.

I admit that the comparison of the events I mentioned and the beginning of Iran's non cooperation is somewhat of a theory of mine, but in my opinion it is fairly logical and at least worth considering.

My opinion is that Iran knows they are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't so they are sick of pandering to certain demands from certain agencies and organizations.

In your defense, if they were more transparent it would give them more credibility among the world stage especially with the skeptics.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

Dear Corruption Exposed,

Thank you for bringing up the IAEA and providing a link to its report. It's 15 pages long, but not too technical, and I enjoyed going through it. Allow me to post portions for the benefit of those who won't go through it.

Despite the intensified dialogue between the Agency and Iran since January 2012, efforts to resolve all outstanding substantive issues have achieved no concrete results: Iran, in an initial declaration,10 simply dismissed the Agency’s concerns in connection with the issues identified in Section C of the Annex to GOV/2011/65; Iran has not responded to the Agency’s initial questions on Parchin and the foreign expert; Iran has not provided the Agency with access to the location within the Parchin site to which the Agency has requested access; and Iran has been conducting activities at that location that will significantly hamper the Agency’s ability to conduct effective verification. Notwithstanding Mr Jalili’s statement referred to above, agreement on the structured approach has yet to materialize.


Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities in the declared facilities referred to below. All of these activities are under Agency safeguards, and all of the nuclear material, installed cascades and the feed and withdrawal stations at those facilities are subject to Agency containment and surveillance.


The Agency is still awaiting a substantive response from Iran to Agency requests for further information in relation to announcements made by Iran concerning the construction of ten new uranium enrichment facilities, the sites for five of which, according to Iran, have been decided. Iran has not provided information, as requested by the Agency, in connection with its announcement on 7 February 2010 that it possessed laser enrichment technology. As a result of Iran’s lack of cooperation on those issues, the Agency is unable to verify and report fully on these matters.


Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has
not suspended work on all heavy water related projects, including the construction of the heavy water moderated research reactor at Arak, the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40 Reactor), which is under Agency safeguards.


Since its visit to the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) on 17 August 2011, the Agency has not been provided with further access to the plant. As a result, the Agency is again relying on satellite imagery to monitor the status of HWPP. Based on recent images, the plant appears to be in operation. To date, Iran has not permitted the Agency to take samples from the heavy water stored at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF).


Although it is obliged to suspend all enrichment related activities and heavy water related projects, Iran is conducting a number of activities at UCF, the Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP) and the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant (FPFP) at Esfahan, as indicated below, which are in contravention of those obligations, although the facilities are under Agency safeguards. Iran has stated that it is conducting these activities in order to make fuel for research reactors.


The Annex to the Director General’s November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. This information, which comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that, prior to the end of 2003 the activities took place under a structured programme; that some continued after 2003; and that some may still be ongoing. Since November 2011, the Agency has obtained more information which further corroborates the analysis contained in the aforementioned Annex.



THE SUMMARY? Iran has cheated, lied, broken it's agreements, and they want you to believe that it's all innocent.

MORE TO COME



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Continued.

Concerning the Parchin site:

Satellite imagery available to the Agency for the period from February 2005 to January 2012 shows virtually no activity at or near the building housing the containment vessel. However, since the Agency’s first request for access to this location, satellite imagery shows that extensive activities and resultant changes have taken place at this location. A number of satellite images of the location since February 2012 show: large amounts of liquid ‘run off’ emanating from the building in which the vessel is housed; equipment in open storage immediately outside the building; the removal of external fixtures from the building itself; and the presence of light and heavy vehicles. Satellite imagery shows that, as of May 2012, five other buildings or structures at the location had been demolished, and power lines, fences and all paved roads had been removed. Significant ground scraping and landscaping have been undertaken over an extensive area at and around the location, with new dirt roads established.
Satellite images from August 2012 show the containment vessel building shrouded. In light of these extensive activities, the Agency’s ability to verify the information on which its concerns are based has been adversely affected and, when the Agency gains access to the location, its ability to conduct effective verification will have been significantly hampered.


Contrary to its Safeguards Agreement and relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran is not implementing the provisions of the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, which provides for the submission to the Agency of design information for new facilities as soon as the decision to construct, or to authorize construction of, a new facility has been taken, whichever is the earlier.

The modified Code 3.1 also provides for the submission of fuller design information as the design is developed early in the project definition, preliminary design, construction and commissioning phases. Iran remains the only State with significant nuclear activities in which the Agency is implementing a comprehensive safeguards
agreement that is not implementing the provisions of the modified Code 3.1. It is important to note that the absence of such early information reduces the time available for the Agency to plan the necessary safeguards arrangements, especially for new facilities, and reduces the level of confidence in the absence of other nuclear facilities.


As previously reported, Iran’s response to Agency requests that Iran confirm or provide further information regarding its stated intention to construct new nuclear facilities is that it would provide the Agency with the required information in “due time” rather than as required by the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to its Safeguards Agreement.


Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran is not implementing its Additional Protocol. The Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless and until Iran provides the necessary cooperation with the Agency, including by implementing its Additional Protocol.


There is no justification for Iran not living up to the agreements it entered into freely. I may not agree with it, but I could understand it, if some power sends in troops to escort the inspectors, and if Iran tries to stop them, follow up with serious consequences.

Iran may have suffered a lot, but there is no reasonable explanation for this.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I find it funny (not literally) that there are how many nations with nuclear weapons that are not abiding to the NPT. It is not only about non-proliferation, but about disarmament as well. Is this more of "do as I say and not what I do"? What are they doing about Israel's nuclear weapons? North Korea's? Is that all it takes? Either don't sign it in the first place or drop out of it?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 

Dear superman2012,

Good morning (at least it is here), thanks for the question, but I'll have to throw it back at you.

I find it funny (not literally) that there are how many nations with nuclear weapons that are not abiding to the NPT.
There you've got me. I don't know about any violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If you've got time, help me out.

It is not only about non-proliferation, but about disarmament as well.
I always thought that disarmament agreements were reached between two or more countries. I don't think Israel is covered by any.

Is this more of "do as I say and not what I do"? What are they doing about Israel's nuclear weapons?
Actually, they're doing nothing about them. For two reasons, no matter what ATSers think, the world as a whole hasn't been afraid that Israel would be a problem, at least not before Iran's behavior. Second, Israel has no obligation to anyone to show it's weapons. They've never agreed to and they don't have to.

Is that all it takes? Either don't sign it in the first place or drop out of it?
My understanding is that a signatory has to give three months notice. (I'm not absolutely sure on that.) It would be interesting to see how the world would react during that time.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by charles1952
 


I find it funny (not literally) that there are how many nations with nuclear weapons that are not abiding to the NPT. It is not only about non-proliferation, but about disarmament as well. Is this more of "do as I say and not what I do"? What are they doing about Israel's nuclear weapons? North Korea's? Is that all it takes? Either don't sign it in the first place or drop out of it?


Neither Israel or NK are signatories, therefore they can not be held to it. Iran is. It would be like me agreeing to allow my landlord to inspect the property once a week and then you trying to hold me to the same agreement. Doesn't work that way, I didn't sign on the dotted line. You did.
Israel did not sign on the dotted line. Iran did.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Iran is, and has been, blocking access to key areas. So yes, the IAEA inspectors have not found anything, but that;s like the police come in with a warrant to search my house and I dictate what rooms they can look in. Pretty hard to find evidence when I hold the keys to locked doors right?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Admittedly Iran is behing reticent in co operating with the IAEA>
They have been doing this shuffle with the UN for the entire time the situation has gone on.....they simply refuse to let the inspectors do their job by denying access to the important sites.
At Parchin the inspectors already have found uranium enriched higher than 20%, the quantity was very tiny, but it indicates something .must have gone on there....
I dont trust the US intelligence, but Iran is not exactly being transparent either.............



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
They are trying to push Iran to the edge of the cliff.

But we trust in god. We insist on using nuclear power plants and saving our oil.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


They will lie, cheat and steal.... if it encourages the USA to attack Iran.



We are being coaxed to kill the Amalek for Israel - in other words tricked into engaging in a war over religion.
Fighting a war because the God of the O.T. commanded it, and there are some on the planet who will not rest until it comes to pass, including fundamentalist Christians here in the US.

RE: The OP's thread, this is true and we have known that Iran is just bluffing regarding their capabilities and what they are able to accomplish. Of course you hide the hand with NOTHING in it. You do not want to lose your ability to protect yourself (against an Israeli attack) or to manipulate and frighten others with veiled threats. They can't do anything right now, most experts in the nuclear field know it... which is causing people to be cautious before engaging in a war. However we have Netanyahu here putting the pressure on as if he knows something different.

Wait until they really do pose a danger or a threat before we attempt aggressive action against Iran.
I don't think we should enter a war with Iran just because Israel wants us to. Even if we see anti-American demonstrations in the region we should not be taunted or threatened into engaging. These are all deliberate provocations....designed to illicit hatred and inspire us to fight.
edit on 25-9-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


This just in: America bombs the IAEA for not saying what they told them to.
I mean you gotta bomb somebody right?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by charles1952
 


I find it funny (not literally) that there are how many nations with nuclear weapons that are not abiding to the NPT. It is not only about non-proliferation, but about disarmament as well. Is this more of "do as I say and not what I do"? What are they doing about Israel's nuclear weapons? North Korea's? Is that all it takes? Either don't sign it in the first place or drop out of it?


Neither Israel or NK are signatories, therefore they can not be held to it. Iran is. It would be like me agreeing to allow my landlord to inspect the property once a week and then you trying to hold me to the same agreement. Doesn't work that way, I didn't sign on the dotted line. You did.
Israel did not sign on the dotted line. Iran did.

Yes I realize Israel what you are saying as that is what I said in my post.
My point being, either countries should not sign it in the first place (Israel) or they should sign it and then drop out of it (North Korea). Parchin is a military base and as such, it is not under the jurisdiction of the IAEA. Now do I think Iran should allow them in? Yes. Do I think the IAEA has the right to demand it? No. Do I think that because Iran does not want them in there leads to the assumption that they have nuclear weapons and/or programs for developing them? IMO, no. The IAEA does have the right to go into the places that are under there jurisdiction, I don't blame Iran for not allowing them into other facilities based on the sabotage and killing of their scientists.





new topics
top topics
 
48
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join