energymaters.com

THIS JOURNAL WILL "TELL IT LIKE IT IS" REGARDING DIFFERENT FORMS OF ENERGY AND THEIR GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS/PROBLEMS

IAEA DIR.-GRL. AMANO FLOPS HIS REPORT ON IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL TO USA SENATE

5 Aug 2015

On 5 Aug 2015, USA SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE chairman, Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was quoted as saying that lawmakers left Wednesday briefing by Yukiya Amano, Director General of IAEA “less assured” about the nuclear deal with Iran. Readers who read our previous post will find his assessment not surprising at all. The IAEA is not a “Nuclear Watchdog Agency” as Reuters is fond of calling them, but rather, “A Nuclear Yunkyard dog” Sen Corker added: “The majority of members left with far more questions than they had before the meeting took place…I can say from my perspective that it left me far less assured.” Corker told reporters after an hour-plus briefing by IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. Amano travelled to the USA Capitol Hill on a bid to assuage growing concern in Congress, where lawmakers will be voting in September 2015, on whether to approve the nuclear accord brokered between Iran and co-signer world powers. Amano was to address two confidential “side deals” IAEA signed with Iran. Washington has described the ‘side-deals” as “technical agreements” which are believed to include a deal about Iran’s documentation of the alleged previous military dimension (PMD)of its nuclear program” Iran in July 2015, granted the IAEA tightly-controlled “managed access” to its military bases as part of the accord. The IAEA agreement is aimed in part, at resolving s USA’s suspicions about Iran’s military facility at Parchin, where USA lawmakers, cited intelligence reports that Tehran conducted past nuclear armament work.

USA LAWMAKERS HAVE AIRED CONCERNS ABOUT IRAN’S MILITARY CAPACITY, and in particular, what kind of access the IAEA would have to Parchin (a known nuclear site). Sen Corkin said:”We can not get him (Amano) to even confirm that we will have physical access inside of Parchin” Amano said: he recognized the USA’s frustrations, but explained: “my legal obligation is to protect safeguards confidentiality.”Amano believes that if the plan is approved, “the nuclear activities of Iran will be reduced in size, and we’ll have the most robust USA verification regime in Iran.”

The top Democrat on the panel, Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), said it was important for members of Congress to at least be able to see key portions of the IAEA-Iran agreements. He added: “I thought today was helpful, but it was not a substitute for seeing the document…I think there’s previsions in the document that relate to the integrity of the review of the PMD that would be useful.”They want to talk “turkey”; not Birds.

David Perdue (R-GA), also a member of the committee, emerged frustrated at Amano’s lack of detail. “The number one question we had was, are we going to get access to the two side agreements ? and the answer was ‘no’… the nuclear deal with Iran is troubling”. IAEA is not fooling our Senators.

UPDATE 1. 7 Aug 2015 Prominent Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer announced his intention to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, according to a statement in the New York Democrat posted late 7 Aug 2015 .

UPDATE 2.  10 Aug 2115, Pres. Barrack. Obama says that a15-year delay in Iran’s (nuclear weapons) capabilities is one of the virtues of the agreement that US, and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (the P5+1) tentatively signed with Iran in July 2015.  On 10 Aug 2015 Pres. Obama said: “If in fact the breakout (?) times now are a few months, and we’re able to push that breakout time out to a year so, that we have more time and space to see whether or not Iran is cheating on an (is there more than one ?) agreement, kicking out inspectors, going for a nuclear weapon; if the breakout time is extended for 15 years and then it goes back to where it is right now, why is that a bad deal?” .

WELL…Mr. President, I am not sure we understand how that could be a “Good Deal”. Suppose that We lift the sanctions, on a gamble that Iran will comply with “The Deal” ( By the way?, is this really a Memorandum of Understanding MOA, AN International Treaty, or what is it.); Then if Iran fails to comply with The Deal, in a week , or a month, or a year (as happened to British PM Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when He and Hitler signed a Peace treaty, and Germany began his expansionist campaign a week later). what recourse do we have?. We have refrained from commenting on The Deal because as even our Senators have lamented, we are not privy to many important details; specially with regard to Iran’s nuclear weapon development, past and present. Even so…

THIS IS NOT A GOOD DEAL We feel compelled by our common sense/wisdom vis-a vis past Iranian/USA relations to opine that our main objection is based on the fact that Iranian Ayatollahs (past and present), have expressed distrust toward the USA, and acted in nefarious/hostile ways toward us. How can we trust a government whose Islamic Leaders distrust us?- NO WAY! Agreements must be made in good faith between/among mutually trusting nations. Mullahs, have traditionally set themselves above and apart from their secular governments, but remain highly in influential in their country’s political affairs – they do not want the responsibility, only the Power. The day when such governments become truly democratic, and disregard the political opinion of their Clergy, Monarchs, Princes, etc., will be a happy day for humanity. I know I wax like France’s Voltaire in my philosophy, but so does the USA Constitution and democracy – even with all its faults. Voltaire too, was intensely disliked by the French Monarchy, but that soon come to an abrupt end. 

I  believe that our diplomats should clearly explain to Iran the consequences of our even knowing they have deliverable nuclear weapons, and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  All Nuclear bomb possessing countries have come to recognize that having them is really an expensive impediment to their governance/ internal security. 

Wendy Sherman, USA’s Undersecretary of State for political affairs, testified to the Senate Banking Committee that she has read the side agreements and would share key details of them later Wednesday in a classified briefing to senators. One wonders why she would be privy to information not yet available to the USA Senate. Looks like money is always involved. We trust she will share information that will satisfy the USA Senate, one way or the other.

Edward Oliver Gonzalez (gonzedo)

 


August 5, 2015 at 9:46 PM Comments (0)