The Israeli government is calling foul, claiming the International Atomic Energy Agency is hiding the ball on the full extent of Iran’s nuclear program:
The statement alleges that an IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear energy program released on Friday “does not reflect the entirety of the information the IAEA holds on Iran’s efforts to advance their military program, nor their continued efforts to conceal and deceive and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA and the international community.”
[. . .]
The statement also accuses Iran of “foot-dragging” and continuing to ignore IAEA questions about its nuclear program and “continues to avoid adhering to Security Council demands to stop enriching uranium.”
In the IAEA report released Friday, the UN nuclear watchdog says Iran’s nuclear energy program may contain “military dimensions.”
In other words, the IAEA report states that Iran may be working towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. The report was issued just prior to the annual meeting of IAEA member states which is scheduled to convene next month in Vienna.
According to this news account, the IAEA report is worded “ambiguously” with regard to Iran’s military ambitions and potential uses. The IAEA pleads that Iran is stonewalling; the Israelis say the IAEA isn’t doing its job.
The Jerusalem Post also reports:
IAEA officials said Iran was stonewalling the agency about “possible military dimensions” to its program. In the report, the IAEA said it has pressed Iran to clarify its uranium enrichment activities and reassure the world that it’s not trying to build an atomic weapon.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said in a prepared statement that the latest IAEA report, released Friday, “accuses Iran of defying [UN] Security Council decisions, but at the same time hides actual Iranian violations on its path toward military nuclear capability,” “This is a harsh report, but it does not reflect all the information possessed by the IAEA on Iranian efforts to advance its military program, on its continuing efforts to hide and deceive, and on [Iran's] noncooperation with the IAEA and the demands of the international community,” the statement read.
Well, you can see where this is heading — endless rounds of protestations by the Iranians, meek objections by the IAEA, and Israeli demands for clarity from the IAEA and action by the U.S. and the West. The ball will be in the Obama administration’s court. Will they get sucked into an endless round of arguments about what should be in the IAEA report and whether Iran has defied its obligations — or will the Obama team finally draw a line in the sand?
And then what? We’ve been waiting to see that “smart diplomacy” in action and find out how Obama can translate his dreamy persona into diplomatic progress. So let’s see if he has both the nerve and the skill to put an end to Iran’s jockeying and line up the international community behind some meaningful action to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, provided, of course, there is any action at this stage that might be meaningful.
Why the surprise? Omar Hassan al-Bashir shares the same faith, besides it gives them a chance to tweak the nose of the western world. Ultimately it is the cause, not the people, which count.
It is a scandal that the western media, including Commentary’s Contention, have not put the Arab regimes, in the person of the Arab League, in the dock for Darfur.
The regime in Khartoum does not care what anyone says or thinks or does with respect to Darfur. It is indifferent to contempt of the entire world, with one exception: its fellow Arabs.
If General Secretary Moussa of the Arab League were to bang the table in front of the Sudan and say: your ethnic cleansing, genocidal killing and mass rapes in Darfur disgraces the Arabs, undermine the Palestinian cause, and violate Islam. Desist immediately or this League will expel you. We will turn our backs on Sudan. The Arab world will cut off all economic, political and cultural relations.. Sudan’s passports will not be honored. You will be shunned.
Such ostracism is the one thing Sudan could not bare. The threat of it is the one thing that could instantly, and easily end the tragedy in Darfur.
Not only is the Arab League complicit in the crimes of Darfur by shrugging its shoulders and saying the matter is none of its affair, the chancelleries of the West and our media are also at fault, for letting the Arab nations get away with this collusion and collaboration in a horrendous crime.
Our universities should be boycotting the Arabs, the editorial pages and opinion pieces in our media should be hounding them day after day, our activities and humanitarians should be laying siege to Arab embassies. And so should Commentary, to the degree it can.
There is not the slightest effort to hold the Arabs to account for Darfur. This tragedy and scandal tars everyone.
activists
Mr. Tobin, you wrote:
“But, of course, what’s really interesting about this is the virtual silence from human-rights groups and international non-governmental organizations who are dedicated to demonizing Israel while they won’t lift a finger to hold the governments who support Sudan accountable for their behavior.”
Here are a couple links that demonstrate what a preposterous statement that is. Perhaps you’d like to click them.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/29/arab-states-press-sudan-darfur-aid
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/league-arab-statessudan-humanitarian-assistance-must-not-be-made-hostage
“But, of course, what’s really interesting about this is the virtual silence from human-rights groups and international non-governmental organizations who are dedicated to demonizing Israel while they won’t lift a finger to hold the governments who support Sudan accountable for their behavior”.
This is, indeed, the most demoralizing aspect of the story. The people of Darfur can’t even count on the human rights activists or the West to speak truth to Arab Muslim power.
For Israel, this is another example of how the “peace process” is essentially one-sided, with the Arab side presumed by the West to be incapable of acting with honorably, decently, and lawfully.
Stuart:
The statement you cited has no basis in fact. You don’t have to worry about it.
I would point out that the reporters for the Times did get a good quote in there.
There was also some criticism of the Arab League’s decision to welcome Mr. Bashir. Some critics said their leaders had embarrassed the Arab world and were supporting Mr. Bashir not on the strength of their convictions but from a sense of self-preservation.
“The leaders’ position is their own self-defense, because they don’t want to open the door to an international tribunal of any kind that will open the file of any crimes they committed against humanity or against their own people,” said Saad al-Ajmi, a former Kuwaiti minister of information. “Most of those regimes are actually dictatorships, and most of them have their hands smeared with the blood of their own people.”
Even with all the qualifications, that’s a pretty damning statement.
I’d really be curious to know how the Darfur atrocities violate Islam in the sense that they contravene, say, Jewish prophetic writings or the Sermon on the Mount.
I would also note that, from the Palestinian Arab perspective, irredentism has yielded respectable results : A mini state in Gaza, the seeds of another on the WB and, should the Hashemites pass from the scene, yet another in Jordan. Plus, of course, worldwide attention and oodles of financial aid. Not too bad for 40 years of “armed struggle.”
If the Pals have had any genuine disincentive to stay the course, I’d like to know what that is as well.
“But, of course, what’s really interesting about this is the virtual silence from human-rights groups and international non-governmental organizations who are dedicated to demonizing Israel while they won’t lift a finger to hold the governments who support Sudan accountable for their behavior.”
This has already been exposed as the dishonest smear it is, but I’m curious: have you ever urged prosecuting Henry Kissinger for his mass murder of Southeast Asian civilians, Tobin? Or Suharto, or Pinochet, or…
Hurf is a jackass. The only mass murder that occurred in Southeast Asia was at the hands of the Khemer Rouge, as well as the North Vietnamese post-U.S. withdrawal. To imply that Kissinger was guilty of mass murder is to imply the U.S. army were mass murderers. Why don’t you tell a Vietnam vet just that, that he’s no better than Pol Pot or Stalin? People like Hurf think they are clever, when they are really just plain ole dumb.
11-Robert, talk to some Vietnam combat veterans.
I’ll give John Kerry a shout out. I’m sure he’ll set me straight.
#10, RobertG: “The only mass murder that occurred in Southeast Asia was at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, as well as the North Vietnamese post-U.S. withdrawal.”
A perfect proof of that is that the massive population flight
occurred after the GIs left, and after the Communists
moved in.
Hurf is a lying shill.
That’s on a good day.
The rest of the time he/she/IT is something I’d scrape off my shoe after a walk through a pig-sty.