Iran Blocks U.N. Nuclear Inspectors

Iran should agree to have as many UN Inspectors as Israel does.

Of course, it won't do them any good. Iraq allowed inspectors, they found nothing, and Iraq was attacked anyway.

Blocking UN inspectors when they know they are coming is directly breaking the laws Iran signed to abide by international peace treaties. This is not good news and everything Iran does more to provoke either us or Israel means war is definitely coming weather we want it to or not.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by SonoftheSun

Not really doublespeak...

The U.S. was waiting for the right reason. The U.N. just delivered it on a silver platter.

But visiting the sites wasn`t on the agenda this time.

They are going back Feb 24 , 25 around then to look at sites.

The WSJ lied again, and as usual everybody believed them.

I don't think that going back at the end of the month is going to solve any issue. Iran is playing a very dangerous game right now. Ahmadinejad is keeping a low profile in order for the Ayatollah to come out and threaten the West. Iran has no intention of stopping their nuclear program. The West has no intention to let them.

It is just a matter of time for talks to stop and action to start. And this could lead us all into something we all might regret. At this point, I don't know how war is avoidable.

And I wish I'm wrong...

To be fair, Israel has probably already made it's mind up about striking Iran they just want to the world to see this before hand.

Well i fear all of this will lead to a mushroom cloud or clouds forming over Iran and any attack conventional or nuclear I feel will lead to WW3. Maybe all the talk about 2012 being the last year was true after all

Originally posted by Magnum007
Iran is mirroring the israeli regime who did the same thing a few years ago...

they are showing the world how hypocritical the israeli regime is... it's pure genius...

They are masters of the TRUE game of politics...

Not even close but nice try... What part of being a signatory to the IAEA / NPT do people just not understand?
Iran is a signatory where as Israel is not, which is why they dont have inspectors in their country. A few years back we had the exact same issues with North Korea. North Korea withdrew from those treaties, and since then we have not seen any talk about them denying inspectors or violating IAEA agreements.

Quit blaming Israel for Irans illegal actions. If Iran wants the IAEA inspectors out, then grow some balls and do what N. Korea did - withdraw from the treaties.

Simple question then: was a visit to those sites on the agenda for this visit or not?

If it wasn't then there is no issue and the IAEA can arrange a visit at a later date. No rules have been broken under the NPT and this becomes a non-issue.

Bottom line though is that it doesn't matter how many inspectors are allowed in, and how many sites they visit, the attack on them WILL happen eventually. Simply because it is what Israel and their paid for, bribed or blackmailed supporters here and in the US want, and who will cheer it on and gladly send our own military to assist as soon as Iran retaliates.

So, what happens if Israel does indeed bomb a few sites and there is NO military response from Iran, who instead chooses to take the matter to the UN and seek redress under international law? I think I know the answer to that one, seeing as how international law has already been shown to be ineffective when applied to certain states.

Originally posted by Magnum007
Iran is mirroring the israeli regime who did the same thing a few years ago...

they are showing the world how hypocritical the israeli regime is... it's pure genius...

They are masters of the TRUE game of politics...

Typical Iranian apologist response.

Criminal when the Israelis do it, admirable when the Iranians do. The hypocrisy is quite rich.

reply to post by Britguy


Per the IAEA inspections to sites are not scheduled. They are to be random and unannounced for obvious reasons. Iran not only denies them access to certain bases / facilities linked to their nuclear program, they deny them access to the scientists as well. They have constructed locations that are part of their nuclear program that were kept secret and not disclosed to the IAEA as required.

If Iran insists its program is peaceful and transparent, why deny inspectors access to certain sites? Why deny them access to scientists? Why build hidden sites and not disclose them to the IAEA?

All of which are violations of IAEA.

Everyone will know something is very wrong when Iran invites more inspectors and then they are either held hostage or killed because they found something.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Per the IAEA inspections to sites are not scheduled. They are to be random and unannounced for obvious reasons. Iran not only denies them access to certain bases / facilities linked to their nuclear program, they deny them access to the scientists as well. They have constructed locations that are part of their nuclear program that were kept secret and not disclosed to the IAEA as required.

What you wrote above makes sense for the obvious reasons.
To continue with Britguys question.
Were the sites to be looked at on this visit..

I watched two videos of returning inspectors saying all went well,, no talk of denied access.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


When backed into a corner, Iran just blames the IAEA. Directly from the IRIB -

‘IAEA experts spy on Iran’s nuclear activities’

Little new in IAEA-Iran talks: diplomats

....................ACCESS "DENIED"

One Western diplomat said he understood the IAEA team had sought - but not been granted - access to the Parchin military site mentioned in a report the agency drew up in November spelling out why it was concerned about Iran's ambitions.....................

...........FURTHER TALKS

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on Wednesday more talks would be needed.

"We had very good meetings and we planned to continue these negotiations. The team had some questions about the claimed studies. One step has been taken forward," he told the semi- official Fars news agency.

By "studies," Salehi was alluding to intelligence reports indicating that Iran has covertly researched ways to design a nuclear weapon. Salehi added: "We were ready to show them our nuclear facilities, but they didn't ask for it."

Lower-level IAEA inspectors based in Iran have regular, if limited, access to Iran's declared nuclear installations.

Western diplomats have often accused Iran of using offers of dialogue as a stalling tactic while it presses ahead with stockpiling enriched uranium, the key energy source in nuclear power plants or bombs, depending on the level of refinement......

They'll send them in a few times and get denied. Then perhaps Hillary will meet with "Amma-dinner-jacket", and the war will be on soon afterwards.

reply to post by CALGARIAN

Something doesn't add up. (of course)

They are accused of creating the bomb, they allow inspectors in and are under watch, nothing is found, they kick them out, more rhetoric, they say they want nuclear talks, they allow them back in, kick them out and repeat. Now they are barred from entering a suspect location of their Nuclear Programme.

This still may or may not be "true". WSJ is the only source I can find ATM..

online.wsj.com

Allowing inspections of any "suspected" site is not part of the original obligations under NPT, but under the Additional Protocol introduced in the 1990s which Iran hasn't ratified, so is not obligated to.

The inspectors act as if Iran is obligated to under the Additional Protocol and Iran restricts them to their authority under the original safeguards agreement.

It is a game that is being played and both sides know it. Regardless of how many visits they make, Iran is not going to yield them an inch more than its obligations under the NPT and regardless of how many inspections they make they are not going to find Iran in violation of the NPT. So even if Iran allows them to inspect the sites they currently "suspect" and they find nothing, as they will, they will come out another list of "suspected" sites ad infinitum. Meanwhile, if the "suspected" sites contain other military programmes unrelated to nuclear weapons, that information will be passed on to the West. So Iran has nothing to gain from allowing them access to the "suspected" sites while having a lot to lose.

reply to post by Observor


The requirements for inspections fall under the IAEA, not the NTP although iran is a signatory to both treaties.

The IAEA is the UN body responsible for inspections of signatory country facilities. Iran violated those standards by building the Qom facility and failing to disclose it. They violated IAEA obligations by denying inspectors access to the site, as well as refusing to allow inspectors access to their scientists.

The NPT has nothing to do with this part of the issue. It does however exist because of Pakistan and North Korea sharing ballisitc missile technology with Iran, which is a violation of the NPT.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The requirements for inspections fall under the IAEA, not the NTP although iran is a signatory to both treaties.

IAEA is body not a treaty. Its inspections are meant to implement the obligations signed and ratified by the participating countries under NPT and other nuclear related agreements.

The IAEA is the UN body responsible for inspections of signatory country facilities.

Yes, if by signatory country you mean a country signatory to the NPT or some other nuclear agreement. There are no "signatories" to IAEA.

Iran violated those standards by building the Qom facility and failing to disclose it.

No, they didn't. They can build any damn thing they please, that doesn't violate their obligations under the NPT. But when any facility involves nuclear activity they have to disclose that to the IAEA. When they completed building facility and started nuclear processing activities they did right under IAEA supervision.

They violated IAEA obligations by denying inspectors access to the site, as well as refusing to allow inspectors access to their scientists.

Iran allowed the inspections of the facility at Qom.

Iran has no obligation to allow them access to the scientists. Even so they did allow access to a few scientists to show good faith and they all ended up dead in mysterious "accidents". They have reason to continue to extend that courtesy anymore.

The NPT has nothing to do with this part of the issue.

Then the inspectors have no business in Iran. The only authority they enter Iran under is to verify Iran's obligations under the NPT.

It does however exist because of Pakistan and North Korea sharing ballisitc missile technology with Iran, which is a violation of the NPT.

Ballistic missile technology has nothing to do with NPT, let alone it being in violation of it.

It may not be a bad idea for you to educate yourself on facts, before attempting to argue.

Originally posted by Observor
IAEA is body not a treaty. Its inspections are meant to implement the obligations signed and ratified by the participating countries under NPT and other nuclear related agreements.

A country who wishes to join the IAEA must meet their signatory obligations, which includes inspections of nuclear facilities, ALL of them, to determine and verify they are for peaceful purposes. The IAEA does not have any authority over countries who are not signatories.

Originally posted by Observor
Yes, if by signatory country you mean a country signatory to the NPT or some other nuclear agreement. There are no "signatories" to IAEA.

Source

Membership into the IAEA - Procedure

The process of joining the IAEA is fairly simple.[28] Normally, a State would notify the Director General of its desire to join, and the Director would submit the application to the Board for consideration. If the Board recommends approval, and the General Conference approves the application for membership, the State must then submit its instrument of acceptance of the IAEA Statute to the United States, which functions as the depositary Government for the IAEA Statute. The State is considered a member when its acceptance letter is deposited. The United States then informs the IAEA, which notifies other IAEA Member States. Signature and ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are not preconditions for membership in the IAEA.

The IAEA has 151 member states. Most UN members and the Holy See are Member States of the IAEA.

Yes, there are signatories.

Originally posted by Observor
No, they didn't. They can build any damn thing they please, that doesn't violate their obligations under the NPT.

No they can't. They are signatories to the IAEA and NPT treaties. Their declared nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and the IAEA can send inspectors into those countries to verify that. A country who is a member / signatory to the IAEA agrees to that, and Iran does indeed fall under that treaty obligation.

Originally posted by Observor
But when any facility involves nuclear activity they have to disclose that to the IAEA. When they completed building facility and started nuclear processing activities they did right under IAEA supervision.

Again no they did not, which is a point of contention when Iran claims they are being transparent and open about their nuclear program. Countries are required to disclose before construction even starts. The only reason Iran "disclosed" the Qom site was because Western Intelligence released the information, forcing Iran into damage control mode.

ANY facility dealing with enrichment MUST be disclosed prior to construction.

Originally posted by Observor
Iran allowed the inspections of the facility at Qom.

You may want to read the article first. If you did you would see the date is from 2009 and has nothing to do with Iran denying the inspectors access to the Qom site during their most recent visit.

ATS - Iran Blocks U.N. Nuclear Inspectors

Originally posted by Observor
Iran has no obligation to allow them access to the scientists. Even so they did allow access to a few scientists to show good faith and they all ended up dead in mysterious "accidents". They have reason to continue to extend that courtesy anymore.

Actually Iran is required to allow access to scientists who are part of the nuclear program.
Safeguards and Verification - Safeguards Agreements & Additional Protocols

As far as the accidents go, Iran has been whining that tired excuse for some years now. Blame anyone but themselves.

Originally posted by Observor
Then the inspectors have no business in Iran. The only authority they enter Iran under is to verify Iran's obligations under the NPT.

Again Iran has been denying access to sites linked to their nuke program. They deny access to scientists linked to their nuke program. They lied about their nuclear program by not listing enrichment sites, which btw must be done BEFORE construction starts. As a signatory to the IAEA / NPT inspections are required prior to any site being built to ensure proper engineering and safeguards are in place. See link above for protocols.

Originally posted by Observor
Ballistic missile technology has nothing to do with NPT, let alone it being in violation of it.

It does when that technology is linked back to a nuclear weapons program. Again feel free to check the Safety protocols and requirements.

Originally posted by Observor
It may not be a bad idea for you to educate yourself on facts, before attempting to argue.

good advice for you...
IAEA - International Conventions & Agreements

reply to post by Xcathdra

A country who wishes to join the IAEA must meet their signatory obligations, which includes inspections of nuclear facilities, ALL of them, to determine and verify they are for peaceful purposes.

Wrong. India is a member of IAEA and has absolutely no obligation to open its nuclear weapons' program to IAEA inspections. Every IAEA member's obligations are defined by the treaties it signed, not by the membership of the IAEA.

The IAEA does not have any authority over countries who are not signatories.

The IAEA has no authority over members (it is not a treaty so stop calling them "signatories") either except those obligations they have taken under different treaties.

Yes, there are signatories.

You seem to have reading comprehension difficulties. The article you linked

The IAEA has 151 member states. Most UN members and the Holy See are Member States of the IAEA.

says member states and you keep saying "signatories"

Given you level of reading comprehension ability, I won't waste my time trying to keep refuting you non-points.