So what if there are other facilities? When Iran is 6 months from loading them w/ UF6, they will let the IAEA know.

Spare us the yellow cake from Niger scare tactics please.

How about the UN Sec Council nations abide by their NPT bargain?

You are wrong on Code 3.1

Read:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/file_download/162/Legal_Adviser_Iran.pdf

While Iran’s actions are inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement, this should be seen in proper context. Given the fact that Article 42 [of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement] is broadly phrased and that the old version of Code 3.1 had been accepted as complying with the requirements of this Article for some 22 years prior to the Board’s decision in 1992 to modify it as indicated above, it is difficult to conclude that providing information in accordance with the earlier formulation in itself constitutes non-compliance with, or a breach of, the [NPT-related] Safeguards Agreement as such.

So it looks like the legal adviser to the IAEA would accept, maybe unwillingly, that Iran’s notification of this new enrichment plant is not non-compliant with Iran’s obligations. So by reporting its actions when it did and assuming that no nuclear material is introduced to the site within the next 180 days, Iran is in compliance with its obligations and this manufactured “crisis” is pointless grandstanding by the USA, UK and France.

There is no crisis.

There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY weapons activity.

Spare us the aluminum tubes....

If we want to stop an Iranian bomb (as opposed to halting its nuclear enrichment activities), we are going to have to convince Iran that it doesn’t need a nuclear deterrent to be safe. That won’t be easy to do, given that Iran has three nuclear neighbors (Pakistan, India, and Israel), and a very bad relationship with the United States, which has given millions of dollars to Iranian opposition groups and formally committed itself to regime change on several past occasions. Persuading Tehran that they don’t need a deterrent requires taking the threat of force, regime change, and the like off the table, instead of ratcheting the threat level up. I’m not saying that this approach will work; I’m saying that threatening preventive war won’t. And actually launching a preventive war is likely to make things much worse.

Since Iran reported the facility to the IAEA on the 21st, I assume that it’s existence was going to come out in the press anyway. When that happened, the take-away might have been that Iran was engaging in good international behavior by complying with IAEA reporting requirements, and doing so on its own initiative. It also would have left egg on the face of Western intelligence, since the world would have learned of this facility directly from Iran, without any heads-up from the West. Washington would have responded, no doubt, that they knew about the facility all along. But who would believe them after the fact?

And if people did believe Washington, they would then have blamed them for covering up a security threat for political reasons. People would then say, “When exactly were you planning to tell the rest of us about this new facility?”

So it looks like Obama, Brown and Sarkozy decided to pre-empt a potentially very embarrassing situation by jumping in front of a camera to present the story that they had “caught” the Iranians first.

Where was the media on this? Who covers the IAEA beat? If the IAEA learned of this facility on the 21st, why hasn’t that already been reported? Is the IAEA airtight?

And if this new facility poses any sort of threat, and Western governments knew of its existence long ago, then why didn’t these governments report what they knew to the IAEA, so that the IAEA could make inquiries with Iran and investigate? Surely they could have given enough information to get the investigative ball rolling, without revealing sources and methods.

This is just another case of hindering the ability of the IAEA to do its work, for the sake of negotiation games.

Joe Cirincione has an article in Huff post saying how good Obama called the shots here. I don’t agree. I think Obama only hindered the ability of the IAEA to do its job.

Iranians have announced that they are constructing the Qom facility to ensure that they can continue enriching uranium even if the "security" of the Natanz facility is compromised. By the same logic, you can be sure that they are constructing facilities to produce "feedstock" should that in Isfahan come under attack. These may be "compelling" evidence that Iran intends to continue its nuclear program even if the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan do come under attack.. They are not evidence -- compelling or not -- that Iran is not fulfilling its NPT obligations.

Too bad the great Western intelligence agencies didn't catch the first and biggest nuclear proliferator in the region -- Israel. Why don't we start with the problem child? Guess why? Because, for whatever weird reason, that apartheid war criminal nation is America's Mini-me.

Iran's leader is an ass.

Iran is also being UNFAIRLY TARGETED because a couple of UNSC nations don't like Iran and the most powerful of them has a big powerful pro-zionist militant right-wing lobby.

Sir_mixx,

You pose some interesting arguments in the different comments you've put up. However, hop off the soapbox with all the Israel bashing; you sound like one of those 9/11 truthers.
Israel has many nukes and there is not a damn thing anyone can do to get them to give them up. They feel everyone is still out to get them and nobody will be able to change their minds.
With Iran, I believe they are in love w/ the bomb and WILL develop one in the not too distant future. I also believe that Israel, US, and everyone else have no choice but to let it happen. An attack on Iran will bring about repercussions that would be far worse than another Islamic bomb. The world is coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression and the shock to oil prices would send everything (economy wise) back in the crapper.
I would like to hope that the Israeli's don't believe that crap about Iran wanting to wipe it off the Earth. The Iranian leadership are a bunch of zealots but they are not completely stupid. They will use the bomb as leverage to get concessions from the US and others just like N. Korea has done.
All the US can do is make it clear that an Iranian bomb only means more troops in Iraq and more Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. It will also mean that all the defense contractors will make billions more since all the Arab states will be scrambling to buy more anti-missile equipment.
This is all assuming someone doesn't do something VERY stupid; only time will tell.....

"Given the fact that Article 42 [of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement] is broadly phrased and that the old version of Code 3.1 had been accepted as complying with the requirements of this Article for some 22 years prior to the Board’s decision in 1992 to modify it as indicated above, it is difficult to conclude that providing information in accordance with the earlier formulation in itself constitutes non-compliance"

So an outdated version of the code that changed 17 years ago is all that needs to be complied with? How can that possibly make sense?

"There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY weapons activity"

"The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, has amassed evidence of a sophisticated Iranian nuclear weapons program that continued beyond 2003. This usually classified information comes courtesy of Germany's highest state-security court. In a 30-page legal opinion on March 26 and a May 27 press release in a case about possible illegal trading with Iran, a special national security panel of the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe cites from a May 2008 BND report, saying the agency "showed comprehensively" that "development work on nuclear weapons can be observed in Iran even after 2003."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124803669414063037.html

September 16, 2009 French intelligence agencies are certain that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program, President Nicolas Sarkozy says.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-world/france-certain-iran-working-on-nukes-20090916-fq3n.html

Get it? It was already started by Mini-me (the war criminal aprtheid state of Israel)

Look up UN Security council resolution 487 which calls on upon Israel to place its nuclear facility under the International Atomic Energy Agency's surveilance.

Here we have a rouge nation, Israel, threatening a law-abiding one, Iran.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 487
JUNE 19, 1981

The Security Council,

Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280,

Having noted the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509),

Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings,

Taking note of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981,

Further taking note of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the "military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency" (S/14532),

Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty,

Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States,

Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations",

1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;

2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;

3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;

4. Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;

5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;

6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution.

Sir-Mix,

If you really think that the UNSC will ever implement this resolution upon Israel than you are wildly naive. If you take a dispassionate look at the permanent members and think about their individual interests it becomes painfully obvious.
US, France, UK
For the US it is obvious; we sell Israel a ton of weapons and they are the only functional democracy in the region. With France and the UK, it is the same reasons and they probably still feel guilty about that Holocaust business.
Russia
This is also quite easy. All the other countries in the ME fear Israel because they have got their asses handed to them on a couple occasions. Since they need weapons, guess who they turn to for them? Russia! I also believe it is in the Russians' interest to have perpetual conflict in the ME. If things were all hunky-dory, that would mean the price of oil will go down; which is not in Russia's interest.
China
This is cake. They will not any time soon do anything on the UNSC the others don't agree with. They care more about getting Taiwan than anything else. They also sell a ton of weapons to those folks and why would they want that to stop?

Sure this is completely against the rules and mandates within those resolutions but that is irrelevant. As long as Israel doesn't do anything wildly stupid nobody that matters will care all that much.

Is it right? Not at all, but that is the way things are.........Have a wonderful day!