Did Iran really tell European leaders that it wants them to back its intentions to make nuclear weapons?
(From MSNBC.com, quoting The Associated Press, updated 2: pm ET, Aug. 9, 2004)
"VIENNA, Austria - Iran has told Europe's leading powers that it wants them to back its right to nuclear technology that can be used to make weapons. Diplomats said Monday the move has dismayed the Europeans and strengthened Washington's push for U.N. sanctions against Tehran."
In another paragraph, the article quotes from President Bush's Monday statement:
"My attitude is that we've got to keep pressure on the government, and help others keep pressure on the government - so there's going to be universal condemnation of illegal weapons activities."
Did Iran really tell European leaders that it wants them to back its intentions to make nuclear weapons? Isn't this exactly as the sentence reads? Isn't it what the article intends to imply? Had Iran actually said that, one could well understand why the European leaders could have been "dismayed" at Tehran's bold and belligerent intents to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory.
Did the AP lie in its reportage, or did MSNBC doctor up the quotation? Had it been Fox news, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard or Jerusalem Post, one might be justified to suspect an ulterior motive in twisting the facts in order to pursue a specific agenda. But why AP or MSNBC?
Using the same information or the raw data that made up this bit of news, this time without the syntactic gymnastics by AP and MSNBC, the paragraph can be reworded as follows:
Iran has told Europe's leading powers it wants them to back its legitimate right under the NPT agreement to use advanced nuclear technology for what Iran insists is peaceful purposes.
This wording doesn't remove the very real possibility that the dual use technology could also lead to weapons development. In fact, the Associated Press article shows that "Europe's leading powers" are uncomfortable that Iran's deliberate ambiguity could aggravate the suspicions whether it is telling the whole truth about its intentions.
But, why are they "dismayed" by Iran's request or expectation for their support? After all, doesn't Iran have the legal right to acquire the advanced technology it seeks? Can anybody deny that? Furthermore, why should Iran have to ask for what it is already entitled to under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty? The United Nations watchdog team, the IAEA, is the monitoring agency whose job is to ensure that member nations adhere to the NPT regulations. Thus far, the IAEA has not reported any evidence of non-compliance in the inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The suspicious traces of highly enriched uranium detected by the inspectors, causing some alarm, were recently found to have come from contaminated equipment purchased from Pakistan, just as the Iranians had claimed.
Perhaps the European leaders are in fact "dismayed" by all this, but certainly not because they believe Iran intends to develop a nuclear arsenal to attack its neighbors, the European continent or the United States, or to put these weapons at the disposal of terrorist organizations. These are allegations drummed up by the pro-Israel voices within the US administration who, along with their Israeli counterparts, have been pursuing two fundamental agendas: First is to maintain Israel's unchallenged military supremacy and deterrent capabilities that is hoped to provide Israel with an impenetrable defensive shield. Second is to dry up all sources of economic and military assistance to the Palestinian resistance movements by neutralizing the regional states that are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
If this analysis is correct, nothing serves Israel's agenda better than a continuation of chaos and strife among the Islamic states in and around the Middle East. As long as the United States finds it necessary to maintain an armed presence in the region, for whatever reason or pretext, Israel can pursue its contemptible, and often internationally condemned, agendas more aggressively and with greater impunity.
So, what better scheme for Israel than to threaten to attack the nuclear facilities of a country that has so serendipitously become a member of President Bush's Axis of Evil club, thus creating an unavoidable series of tit for tat regional skirmishes that would most certainly involve the United States? To keep the pet pit-bull from inciting another regional war, the Unites States sees no option but to apply all the pressure it can muster to render Iran transparently defenseless. This, along with additional economic, military and diplomatic aid pouring into Israel, including the Democratic Party candidates' reassurances of continued unquestioned support, is supposed to pacify the trigger-happy menace, at least for now.
How could Europe's leading powers be "astonished" and "stunned", as described in the News Telegraph, UK, on August 11, that Iran feels threatened by Israel, or that it simply demands to be guaranteed its legal rights under the NPT agreements?
Finally, let's go back to the quote from President Bush's comments of Monday, August 9, "My attitude is that we we've got to keep pressure on the government, and help others keep pressure on the government - so there's going to be universal condemnation of illegal weapons activities."
Well, wonderful, so there's going to be universal condemnation of illegal weapons activities? How about starting with Israel and then following through with Iran, if by then Iran would even need to think about its own "weapons of deterrence"?
... Payvand News - 8/13/04 ... --