Previous articles said US intelligence assessments through March 2011 (the latest one) found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons development.
During his December 1, 1997 - November 30, 2009 tenure as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei concurred. He carefully avoided anti-Iranian rhetoric and baseless charges.
As a result, Washington and Western allies replaced him with Yukiya Amano, known to be more amenable to their interests. Six ballots and heavy pressure eliminated South Africa's Abdul Samad Minty.
Under his tenure since December 1, 2009, IAEA became a Western tool, providing conjecture, dubious intelligence, and fabricated allegations about an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program. Despite no evidence proving one, Amano's report claims otherwise.
On November 8, New York Times writers David Sanger and William Broad headlined, "UN Finds Signs of Work by Iran Toward Nuclear Device," saying:
"United Nations weapons inspectors released a trove of new evidence Tuesday that they say makes a 'credible' case that 'Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,' and that the project may still be under way."
Based on forged, otherwise suspect, long ago discredited, discounted, or nonexistent documents, IAEA's report lacks credibility. Moreover, nothing new was revealed. Material from 2004 and earlier was manipulated to look current. It's not!
Based on identical information, US intelligence and ElBaradei produced completely opposite conclusions. Now they're politicized, fraudulently hyped, and regurgitated by major media liars, political Washington, Israeli hard-liners, and supportive Western leaders.
Obama so far said nothing.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said:
"We're going to study it. We are not prepared to speak about any next steps at this point."
Haaretz headlined, "IAEA report: Iran working to produce a nuclear bomb," saying:
Documents released show "a series of tests, acquisition of material, and technology that suggests Iran has continuously worked to produce a nuclear weapon since 2003."
IAEA said "The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program."
Israel is nuclear armed and dangerous. So is America. Both have first-strike priorities if allegedly threatened, including against non-nuclear states.
IAEA inspectors haven't investigated or discussed their programs, let alone cited their dangers or condemned them. Only Iran is targeted. Why is at issue?
Since Iran's 1979 revolution and US hostage crisis, Washington's been spoiling for a fight. The Carter administration considered invading and seizing its oil fields.
Tensions remained tense. Washington sought regime change for years. Various confrontational tactics include on and off saber rattling, sanctions, and direct meddling in Iran's internal affairs, perhaps including covert US Special Forces and CIA operatives there causing trouble.
Its leaders are accused of state sponsored terrorism, including baseless charges of anti-US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Calling Iran a threat to world peace, Amano now accuses Tehran of concealing a nuclear weapons program.
Neither charge is credible. At issue is Iran's independence. Washington targets all nations it doesn't control. It was Saddam's undoing, Gaddafi's also, as well as others post-WW II, including democrats, despots and others in between.
Key also is Israel's quest for regional dominance. As its main rival, Iran is target one, not because of alleged threats, terrorism, or a supposed nuclear weapons program.
Amano claiming "credible" evidence is spurious. On November 8, Press TV said America gave him marching orders to produce it. Iranian and other experts discount it, calling its alleged evidence "indefensible."
Nothing new is revealed, just rehashed old information discounted as lacking credibility. Original documents haven't been released, just allegations of what they contain. ElBaradei repeatedly accused Washington of obstructing the agency's safeguards.
In 2007, Iran produced a 117-page assessment. IAEA has it. It proved documents from alleged studies and other sources were forged. Amano omitted mention of it from his report.
In other words, he skewed "facts" to fit Washington's policy. He also ignored Israel's Jericho-3 intercontinental ballistic missile test, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead up to 10,000 km away.
That's as good a scoundrel definition as any. Far better, in fact, when peace and regional stability hang in the balance. If Iran's attacked, he'll have blood on his hands for lying. Justifying war on Iraq followed the same pattern, claiming nonexistent WMDs.
Russia Today (RT.com) quoted Russian President Dmitry Medvedev saying:
"We understand how ramped up the passions in the Middle East are, the situations some countries face, and the fact that the peace process is stalled. If a militaristic tide is stirred in these circumstances, if threats are voiced, it may provoke very serious consequences."
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe also warned against attacking Iran. Restraint calls followed Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak demanding "crippling sanctions" on Iran. Otherwise a strike, not diplomacy, may follow.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad told IRNA news:
"If America wants to confront the Iranian nation, it will certainly regret (its) response."
Foreign affairs analyst Richard Heydarian said:
"The problem with the IAEA report is that it relies heavily on satellite images and data provided by Western intelligence agencies....The case of the Syrian Al-Hasakah Spinning Factory has proved that actually you cannot rely on satellite images. There is huge room for error."
He added that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be foolhardy, let alone lawless, saying:
"Its nuclear facilities are numerous. They are spread across the country. Some of them are highly protected and even bunker busters that the US has given to Israel might not take out many of them. Iran has learned from the example of Iraq and has a very sophisticated way of protecting its nuclear facilities."
At the same time, Iranian officials don't underestimate a possible US and/or Israeli attack, given Washington's permanent war policy and Israel's longstanding belligerence.
New lines in the sand were drawn, heightening the risk of war with potentially devastating consequences. Hopefully cooler heads on both sides will prevent it. The alternative is too dire to risk.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.