The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in their inspection role for compliance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has their November 2011 report in similar misleading language as their February 2010 report.
IAEA appears to be under the same political pressure to make a case for war on Iran that we witnessed before US armed attack of Iraq. US corporate media and US political “leadership” will not remind Americans that the US eliminated the UN agency director who would have resolved concerns of alleged Iraq weapons:
“…the conservative first option should have been the UN Security Council voting for the UN WMD agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to directly request Saddam to submit to OPCW’s authority. The Director-general of OPCW, Jose Bustani, was in talks with Saddam to do so. Instead of supporting this reasonable alternative to war, the US promised to withhold its funding of the UN (22% of the UN’s budget) until Bustani was fired. The US called Bustani’s talks with Saddam an “ill-considered initiative.” The US request was honored; the US then paid its 2002 UN dues in April 2002; less than one year before the US invasion of Iraq. This was the first time in UN history where the Director of an international program was fired.[13] By the way, the US does not cooperate with the OPCW to ensure US compliance with International Laws of chemical and biological WMD.”
Consider an etymology of the word, war: to confuse, to perplex.
Comparing the last two IAEA report conclusions in the historical context of propaganda leading to war on Iraq:
2010:
“46. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”
2011:
“52. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”
Let’s unpack this:
IAEA confirms zero evidence of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. This conforms to the agreement of all 16 US intelligence agencies in their December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), and Seymour Hersh’s report on the classified but leaked 2011 NIE.
IAEA continues obfuscating language Iran’s Additional Protocol, a voluntary set of additional safeguards Iran temporarily administratively approved, but kept open to withdraw by not ratifying the treaty by their legislature. Iran withdrew after two years of US non-compliance of NPT (history here). IAEA’s language states they can’t prove there isn’t nuclear material they don’t know about. This is similar to propaganda to damage your family: “While the Agency continues to verify the non-terrorism of your family, your family isn’t providing the necessary cooperation for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of your family’s terrorist activities.”
Additional propaganda for war on Iran comes in this part of IAEA’s 2010 and 2011 reports:
2010:
“The information available to the Agency in connection with these outstanding issues is extensive and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. It is also broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved. Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
2011:
“After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.”
This propaganda of “gathering concern” is similar to what preceded war with Iraq; the admission of zero evidence of unlawful activity framed in a cheap rhetorical trick of possible “secret crimes.” IAEA also lies in omission that previous “sources” concerning Iran nuclear weapon development are now confirmed as planted evidence (here, here and here).
US corporate media propagandizes for war: US corporate media is concentrated in six corporations, with previous CIA disclosure of “influencing” content. The biggest context of lies of omission are the damning disclosures by our own government that all “reasons” for war with Iraq are now known to be lies as they were told, and in direct violation of war law.
Examples of obvious lies of commission and omission:
New York Times 1/5/2012 front page article lying that IAEA reported “Iran’s nuclear program has a military objective.”
Current political “leadership” and Republican presidential candidates fomenting fear and war threat over Iran’s “nuclear program” and lies about Iran’s president insisting lawful behavior by Israel with Palestine.
CNN’s 2010 screaming headline: Watchdog: Iran may be working on nuclear warhead leads the glaring lie of omission that all nuclear material is accounted for lawful use. The “reporting” includes the White House lie that Iran’s disclosed Qom nuclear facility can’t be used for peaceful nuclear use, despite independent analysis that its specifications are precisely for that purpose, and IAEA would know immediately if enrichment went beyond the facility’s limits. They lie again by reporting the facility as “secret” despite the fact it was reported by Iran to IAEA ahead of their NPT requirement to do so. They continue on their roll of lies by not reporting Iran’s several offers to accept medical isotopes as imports provided they had a guaranteed timeline.
CNN’s 2010 video report has this banner at the bottom: “Iranian nuclear warhead?” with the glaring lie of commission that a 20% enrichment is a “magic number” that shows enrichment for a nuclear weapon despite it being exactly what’s needed for lawful nuclear medicine. IAEA has constant video and chemical monitoring for enrichment to never exceed 20%; weapons-grade requires 85%+ with different physical equipment requirements.
Among many of Israel’s headlines, this is typical: IAEA report: Iran may be developing atom bomb
So understand: this whole “issue” could be averted if the US merely agreed for a simultaneous swap of fuel. But the US wants the problem unsolved, and US corporate media won’t report this solution anymore than they reported that the US got rid of the UN Director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons who was working with Saddam to resolve any concern over alleged weapons.
Except for Pulitzer-winner Seymour Hersh, you have to go outside corporate media to find exposure of this propaganda, such as Global Research, Activist Post, Washington’s Blog, Want to Know, Prison Planet, What Really Happened.
The following additional resources document further US “leadership” and corporate media lies of commission and omission:
US overthrew Iran’s democracy 1953-1979, helped Iraq invade 1980-1988, now lies for more war (and an analogy if the US were the victim of empire)
What Iran’s president said about Israel, and how US War Criminal 1% lie for war
US constantly violates war law: arrest Obama before ‘false flag’ war on Iran
Analogy: US wars on Iraq, Iran as US criminal gangster “business”
9/11 killed 1, injured 2 if US was a city of 100,000. US wars: CRIMINAL response
Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now (6-part series)
By Carl Herman
15 January 2012
@ Washington’s blog