Alt+left-arrow to return from a link
Iran: Uranium enrichment (latest)
News, context, start, Iraq: U.S. bases, electricity, oil revenues, missing billions, Iran: U.S. sanctions1, sanctions2, P-5 enrichment cartel, non-facts: enough oil and gas, outside fuel supply, centrifuges, “hiding” underground, “they lied,” countermeasures, “no economic sense,” Iran's economic plans, reprisals, Philippe Douste-Blazy, Jack Straw, IAEA, U.N. Security Council Docs. S/PRST/2006/15, S/Res/1696, “threat to the peace,” John Bolton, laptop/Merlin, Hans Blix, Big Lie, media, caveats, Hermann Goering, Reuel Marc Gerecht, blackmail.
Scenarios:
1 U.N. Security Council orders Iran to suspend activities at its nuclear fuel cycle plants (uranium conversion and centrifuges) (S/Res/1696, July 31 2006).
Iran declines, asserting the order is unlawful.
U.S. destroys the plants, to enforce the order.
Iran retaliates against U.S. bases in Iraq.
U.S. second wave destroys Iran’s military and government.
U.S. “secures” Iran’s western oil fields, “for the benefit of the Iranian people.”
2 Israel attacks Iran (offense).
Iran retaliates against Israel (defense).
U.S. attacks Iran in “defense” of Israel (offense).
News
May 31 2006:
What Iran should say to Condoleezza Rice
Iran will not, again, suspend our enrichment activities, not least because spinning down the centrifuges causes many to crash, destroying them, and we don’t have any to spare.
We suspended our enrichment activities for more than two long years. During this time, slowly, one by one, incendiary allegations were investigated and found to be without merit, by the IAEA.
During this period, U.S. President George W. Bush, and other of his officials, have repeatedly asserted, they will not permit Iran to conduct fuel enrichment, under any circumstances, citing their supposed fear, that Iran will one day make nuclear weapons.
We believe, no amount of verification and monitoring by the IAEA will persuade U.S. officials to abandon their unlawful demand, and abandon their unlawful threats, of violence against Iran.
Iran will not surrender its right to fuel enrichment, under any circumstances.
Accordingly, Iran can see no purpose in suspending fuel enrichment, yet again.
Iran’s fuel enrichment activities are currently conducted under the watchful eye of IAEA inspectors, under the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, as in the past.
If the U.S. wishes to engage in talks, Iran is ready to participate.
To encourage such talks, Iran will once again reinstate its additional cooperation with the IAEA, under the Additional Protocol, and as well the additional voluntary cooperation Iran was providing, before the IAEA Board decided to refer Iran to the Security Council.
This, on the condition, that matters are restored to the status quo ante.
If the IAEA Board formally rescinds its resolution—
And if the Security Council formally terminates its agenda item on this topic—
Then, on the later of those dates, Iran will thereupon resume its former additional cooperation.
And, Iran will engage in talks, to find methods of satisfying reasonable, impartial, observers, that Iran’s nuclear activities are peaceable.
–CJHjr
June 1 2006:
The P5 offer
“You suspend enrichment, and we will suspend action at the U.N. Security Council.”
That’s the same as this offer:
“Give me your money, and I won’t kill you.”
Iran should post the offer, for the public to evaluate, and then sit back and wait for the storm, of public scorn and ridicule.
Meanwhile, Iran should make this counter offer:
“You order The Boeing Company to suspend manufacture of airplanes, pending our talks, and we will suspend enrichment, as soon as we verify Boeing has complied.”
The P5 are terrorists.
Threatening violence, and sanctions, to blackmail Iran, to stop doing what it’s entitled to do.
If the P5 honestly wish to resolve, peaceably, the crisis they have created, then let them submit their case, to the U.N. I.C.J. (International Court of Justice), for a ruling, whether the Security Council has lawful authority to adopt sanctions, or authorize war, on the facts of the case.
This, because they have no apparent authority, there being no evidence, of any “threat to the peace.”
If the U.S. wishes to assert, that Iran has forfeited its right to enrich uranium, because Iran may not have reported to the IAEA, this or that, as they should have, then let the U.S. submit that case, and that remedy, to the I.C.J., where that issue can be determined peaceably, and that remedy can be ordered lawfully.
And, where Iran can present its counter case, that any reporting failures were: (1) not “material breaches,” and (2) were lawful countermeasures, to protect itself, from massive “material breaches,” by the United States, which unlawfully prevented Iran from pursuing the peaceable activities the treaty guaranteed to them.
–CJHjr
June 12 2006:
The U.S. enrichment veto
The confidential diplomatic package backed by Washington and formally presented to Iran on Tuesday leaves open the possibility that Tehran will be able to enrich uranium on its own soil, U.S. and European officials said.
That concession ... is conditioned on Tehran suspending its current nuclear work until the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency determines with confidence that the program is peaceful.
U.S. officials said Iran would also need to satisfy the U.N. Security Council that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, a benchmark that White House officials believe could take years, if not decades, to achieve.
Karl Vick, Dafna Linzer, “Proposal Would Let Iran Enrich Uranium: Tehran Must Meet U.N. Guidelines” {pf} (Washington Post, June 7 2006), accord Nazila Fathi, “Iran to Offer Its Own Terms on Uranium” (New York Times, June 11 2006).
This is the standard U.S. scam, to give legal gloss, to its pretensions, that the U.S. President is Emperor of the World.
Pass a resolution.
Which can only be revoked by a later resolution.
If the U.S. President doesn’t veto it.
The Iranians might agree to this.
If some big, unexpected, event occurs—
If Hell freezes over.
For example.
Otherwise, Iranian leaders will never agree, that the U.S. President can veto their lives, and kill their citizens.
U.S. Presidents killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, before the 2003 war, when they preempted many proposed Security Council votes, with their many threatened vetoes, to suspend U.N. sanctions, against Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, which did not exist, because Saddam promptly destroyed them all, mostly in 1991, as the U.N. had demanded.
But.
Here’s a counter offer, were Iran to dance this dance:
Iran will agree to this, if the Security Council includes this provision, in its resolution, approving the deal:
“The Security Council decides:
1. That Iran, and any member of the Security Council, is authorized to submit a draft resolution, at any time, to terminate this resolution, and this agenda item, and thereupon restore the status quo ante, including Iran’s right to resume uranium enrichment, under IAEA Safeguards.
2. That the draft resolution will, immediately, and automatically, become an agenda item, taking precedence over all other matters on the agenda, and will be promptly considered, debated, and voted upon, in public session, with Iran entitled to be heard, at length, in the debate.
3. That if the draft resolution does not pass, others may again be introduced, after 6 month intervals.
4. That the draft resolution will pass, on the vote of 9 or more members, and a “no” vote, by any Permanent Member, will not constitute a veto.
5. That if the draft resolution is defeated, by a “yes” vote of fewer than 9 members, the resolution will nevertheless be deemed to have passed, in the absence of evidence, submitted in the debate — which a reasonable, impartial, informed, person would reasonably consider to be persuasive and substantial — that Iran is then currently violating Article 2 of the NPT.
6. That each member of the United Nations shall be entitled, to judge that evidence for itself, in deciding, whether or not any otherwise binding Security Council resolution shall be binding on it.”
____________________
Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
The NPT, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Article 4(2) (Vienna, June 19 1973) {25kb.pdf, 25kb.pdf}, status {12kb.pdf}, declarations {68kb.pdf}.
–CJHjr
July 31 2006:
Iran ordered to suspend enrichment permanently
The U.N. Security Council, on July 31 2006, ordered Iran to suspend uranium enrichment (S/Res/1696).
This suspension order is permanent.
Because it cannot be revoked.
Without consent of the U.S. government.
Which can veto any revoking resolution.
Regardless of what the IAEA inspectors, or the 14 other members of the Security Council, may later say.
A very great failure of diplomacy, by the Russians.
Who should know better.
They watched the maneuvers of a violent criminal regime, up close, when Adolph Hitler gripped the levers of power, for 12 years, in Germany.
The prima facie criminal U.S. war on Iraq, launched on a lie, and in violation of a Security Council resolution (S/Res/1441).
The prima facie criminal U.S. war on Gaza, and the rest of the Palestinians, by blockade, as a co-belligerent with Israel, with the prima facie criminal war aim, to overthrow their democratically elected government.
The prima facie criminal U.S. war on Lebanon, to increase a buffer zone, to defend the prima facie criminal land-grab, and unlawful military occupation, in the occupied territories, by their co-belligerent, Israel.
And now Iran.
The predicate for scenario 1 is now in place.
Politically, the U.S. requires nothing further from the Security Council.
To attack Iran.
Except for whatever political show it desires to pretense, before the attack, to demonstrate, once again, how irrelevant the Security Council is.
George W. Bush can now assert, that Iran has no legal right to continue uranium enrichment.
And, that the U.N. Security Council has determined, that any continuation constitutes a “threat” to international peace and security.
Even though that’s not what they said.
That must be what they meant.
George W. Bush will boldly assert.
Because the Security Council members all knew, they did not otherwise have legal authority, to adopt that order.
George W. Bush can simply declare diplomacy exhausted, the Security Council cowards, to confront the “threat” — which they, themselves, have recognized — and war as the only solution to that threat.
War is what the Israel-Jew Lobby wants.
And, what the Israel-Jew Lobby wants, Congress always provides.
Normally.
But, in the present political climate, some votes might disobey the Israel-Jew Lobby, citing a bankrupt nation, and many other reasons, no evidence, a failed war in Iraq, increased hatred of the U.S., and such.
In that event, if Congressional leaders judge, the vote would not be certain, George W. Bush would likely order the U.S. military to attack Iran anyway, without a vote in Congress, based on the authority he asserts he has, to do so, “to deter ... threats.”
George W. Bush has declared, that history will judge him a hero, if he pursues his own vision, to remake the Middle East.
He has said, he is content to be judged by history, and so, is indifferent, to his present day critics.
His vision obviously requires plunging the entire Middle East into flames, in order to remake it.
The U.S. attack on Iran will be criminal.
And so too, the nuclear targets in Iran (“civilian objects”).
Creating the largest criminal trial in U.S. and world history, down the road, if an honest administration is ever elected, to control the U.S. Congress and the U.S. administration (very unlikely).
Only if Iran now files a lawsuit, in the U.N. International Justice of Court, can it overturn the Security Council resolution, and thereby neutralize George W. Bush’s rhetorical pretexts.
Unlike nearly every other case, this particular lawsuit, the U.S. cannot block and ignore.
Because the defendants would be the Security Council itself, and the IAEA.
The U.S. fears lawsuits.
Because it’s conduct is nearly always unlawful.
And usually criminal.
The U.S. does not permit lawsuits against itself, in U.S. courts, or international courts, for its international activities, including its violent crimes and intentional torts.
–CJHjr
Context
Of the 114 chapters in the Koran, 113 of them start with the words:
“In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful.”
In the Koran, God tells the Profit, people follow you because of the merciful nature of God, and that if you are harsh with people, they will turn their backs on you.
Hussein Ali Montazeri (84 year old Grand Ayatollah), interviewed in Qom, March 8 2006 (Channel 4 News, London, March 13 2006, 7:29 p.m.) (video not posted).
–CJHjr
I believe that we are on a very short fuse—
Months rather than years ...
I think that we should actively be preparing for whatever military actions are necessary.
But I think our goal has to be to replace the regime. ...
If this government—
If this dictatorship is so dangerous, that we have to consider bombing it—
It’s too dangerous to leave it in charge of one of the world’s largest supplies of oil.
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House of Representatives, U.S. Congress 104-105, 1995-1998), interviewed by Sean Hannity and Bob Beckel, “Interview with Newt Gingrich” {LexisNexis, Lexis} (Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, January 27 2006, 9:00 pm EST), reported in Paul Craig Roberts, “The Coming War on Iran: Fox News Fans the Hysteria” (CounterPunch, January 30 2006). And see: Newt Gingrich, interviewed in “Gingrich Warns of War With Iran” (Human Events, February 10 2006): “Our objective should be the systematic replacement of this regime.” Patrick J. Buchanan, “Churchill, Hitler, and Newt” {copy} (WND: WorldNetDaily, February 20 2006): “The Argumentum ad Hitlerum.”
____________________
Query: “Dictatorship”?
In a dictatorship —
Do the people have the power?
To throw-out a government?
If they don’t like it?
In periodic elections?
The president?
The parliament?
The Assembly of Experts?
City and Village Councils?
Even if the laws.
Big Money.
Powerful forces.
Unseen hands.
Limit their choice of candidates.
Can the people?
Nevertheless?
Throw the incumbents out?
If they want to?
In a dictatorship?
–CJHjr
The 1973 embargo sparked a new hawkishness in Washington.
An article in the March, 1975, issue of Harper’s, titled “Seizing Arab Oil,” unabashedly outlined plans for a U.S. invasion to seize key Middle East oilfields and prevent Arab countries from having such control over the modern world’s most vital commodity.
The author, writing under a pseudonym, wasn’t just any old right-wing blowhard; it turned out to be Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
But seizing Arab oilfields was too risky as long as the Soviet Union existed. The Soviet collapse in 1991 opened up new possibilities. ...
“The plan to take over Iraq is a revival of an old plan that first appeared in 1975. It was the Kissinger plan,”
James Akins, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Kissinger, told me in an interview in Washington in 2003.
Dyer insists that the Iraq invasion wasn’t about oil, but about extending U.S. power.
But these goals go hand in glove.
Linda McQuaig, “History Will Show U.S. Lusted After Oil” (Toronto Star, December 26 2004) {copy}. See also Glenn Frankel, “U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In ’73: British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast” {pf} (Washington Post, January 1 2004) {copy}; Robert Dreyfuss, “The Thirty-Year Itch” (Mother Jones, March-April 2003).
CJHjr: In 1975, then (unelected) President Gerald Ford appointed George H.W.Bush Director of Central Intelligence, Dick Cheney White House Chief of Staff, replacing Donald Rumsfeld, appointed Secretary of Defense, and fired Henry Kissinger from one of his two jobs (National Security Advisor), leaving him as Secretary of State (the “Halloween Massacre”). In brief {2:30 bb}, Michael Kirk, “The Dark Side” (WGBH, Frontline, first broadcast June 20 2006, PBS: Public Broadcasting Service) {video 2/6 bb, 19:11 bb, at 0:00-2:30 bb}.
–CJHjr
First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.
Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. ...
The United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated.
Dick Cheney (U.S. Secretary of Defense), Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (Undersecretary of Defense for Policy), Irving Lewis Libby (“Scooter”) (Chief of Staff to Wolfowitz), Defense Planning Guidance (February 18 1992 draft, 46 pages, classified), excerpted in “Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'” {copy, excerpts} (New York Times, March 8 1992), reported in Patrick E. Tyler, “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No Rivals Develop: A One-Superpower World: Pentagon’s Document Outlines Ways to Thwart Challenges to Primacy of America” (New York Times, March 8 1992) {copy, copy}, reprinted in Robert Carlyle Byrd (U.S. Senator, West Virginia), statement, “The Threadbare Supercop,” 138 Congressional Record S3110-S3113 (March 10 1992, daily edition 138:32, U.S. Congress 102-2) {SuDoc: X/A.102/2:138/32}, reported in Barton Gellman, “Keeping the U.S. First: Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower” (Washington Post, March 11 1992) {copy, copy, copy}, context Nicholas Lemann, “The Next World Order: The Bush Administration may have a brand-new doctrine of power” (The New Yorker, April 1 2002, pages 42-48) {833kb.pdf}.
–CJHjr
The Golden Rule
The United States have to take a hard look at their own behavior.
And ask themselves:
If they were in the place of other nations.
What would they do?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran), interviewed by Barbara Slavin in Tehran, February 11 2006, “Iran Can Progress Despite Enemies, President Says” {pf} (USA Today, February 13 2006) {copy}. And see Barbara Slavin (Senior Diplomatic Correspondent, USA Today), interviewed on Washington Journal (C-Span, February 21 2006), “Discusses her recent trip to Iran,” C-Span video {39:30}, (C-Span, June 1 2006), “Discusses U.S. policy toward Iran. On May 31, the U.S. announced a shift in policy, saying it will work with other countries to hold direct talk with Iran about Iran’s nuclear program. He announced one condition on this policy: Iran must agree to stop nuclear activities that could lead to a bomb,” C-Span video {35:00}. And see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, interviewed by Stefan Aust, Gerhard Spörl, Dieter Bednarz, in Tehran, “‘We Are Determined’” (Spiegel, May 30 2006) {copy}.
God: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Jesus: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
Jesus: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
Muhammed: “None of you [truely] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
Hillel: “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary.”
Tse-kung: “Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?
Confucius: “Shu”—reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.”
–CJHjr
R.I.P. NPT:
How the United States destroyed the Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty
by Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
When rational people appear to behave irrationally—
There’s a reason.
And the larger the group, more than one reason is likely.
U.S. Congress
If you want to experience a group psychosis, in real time, power-up your Windows Media Player, or RealOne Player, get on-line, and open this URL (Alt-F, Open): audio {2:26:55} (Options Available to the United States to Counter a Nuclear Iran, House Armed Services Committee hearing, February 1 2006).
A U.S. Congressional committee hearing — without a
single, moderate, questioning, critical, voice — predicated on
the “fact” that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
This supposed “fact” is not established in the public record. And it’s abundantly refuted in the public record.
And so, what is the reason(s) for this apparently psychotic behavior, by the U.S. Congress?
IAEA
Three days later, on February 4 2006, the Board of Governors of the IAEA (U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency) voted (27/3/5) to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, for Iran’s supposed failure(s) to comply with its obligations to cooperate with the IAEA.
This, despite heroic cooperation by Iran, unprecedented in world history.
Apart from Iraq.
Which likewise cooperated 110% with U.N. inspectors.
Until George W. Bush, and Tony Blair, ordered the inspectors out and decided that killing 100,000 Iraqis was a price those victims were willing to pay, to enable the U.S. to establish permanent military bases in Iraq; groom and corrupt an obeisant government; control and thieve {2.3mb.pdf} the second largest oil reserves on earth; surveil {accord}, destabilize, and attack Iraq’s neighbors, with covert criminal gangs {copy, accord, copy}, and by overt military assault.
All the while, strong-arming Israel’s theft {copy}, nearby, of Palestinian land.
Iraq
Permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq
Jimmy Carter: I believe ... the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region ...
Arab leaders around the world, they all have noticed this.
They’re the ones that have brought it to my attention.
And I think it’s an accurate statement.
Jimmy Carter (U.S. President, Jan. 20 1977-1981 Jan. 20), interviewed by Larry King, “Interview With Jimmy Carter” {copy} (CNN, Larry King Live, February 1 2006).
H.Amdt.750 (“None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Government of the United States to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq”) to H.R.4939, amendment introduced, debated, adopted, “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006,” 152 Congressional Record H1097-H1118 {190kb.txt, 178kb.pdf}, at H1107-H1110 (introduced, debated), H1110 (adopted by voice vote) (March 16 2006, daily edition 152:34, U.S. Congress 109-2) {SuDoc: X/A.109/2:152/34}, video (0:26:25).
S.Amdt.3717 (“None of the funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq”), superceded by S.Amdt.3855 (“No funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq”) to H.R.4939, amendments adopted and debated, “Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006,” 152 Congressional Record S3937-S3973 {317kb.txt, 273kb.pdf}, at S3948-3949 (introduced), S3952 (adopted by voice vote), S3957-S3963 (debated) (May 3 2006, daily edition 152:50, U.S. Congress 109-2) {SuDoc: X/A.109/2:152/50}.
Comment by CJHjr:
So.
We can spend as much money as we want, to help United States oil companies “exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.”
And, we can spend as much money as we want, to build military bases:
If we pretend they’re not “permanent.”
Or:
If we intend, as some future date, to turn them over to the Iraqi government.
Because, our intended gift makes them permanent Iraqi military bases, not “permanent United States military bases.”
And the U.S. puppet compliant client Iraqi government will allow the U.S. to continue to control and operate these permanent Iraqi military bases.
Or have access to them, any time we want.
Under a “basing rights agreement,” dictated negotiated by the U.S. government, with the U.S. puppet compliant client Iraqi government, using funds (to pay for the “negotiations”) from the many other sources available to the U.S. government, besides this particular law.
“Yeah.”
“We can live with that.”
“A fine piece of propaganda.”
–CJHjr
Richard Cowan, “Iraq War Bill Deletes US Military Base Prohibition” {copy} (Reuters, June 10 2006): “Senate aides said Republican staffers removed the provisions from the bills before House and Senate negotiators convened this week in a late-night work session to write a compromise spending bill.”
The conferees have not included a provision proposed by the Senate to prohibit the use of funds in this title to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other Purposes {pf}, page 102 {459kb.txt, purl, 466kb.pdf, purl} (U.S. Congress 109-2, House Report No. 109-494, Senate-House Conference Committee, June 8 2006) {SuDoc: Y 1.1/8:109-494, Serial Set: (none yet), CIS: (none yet), LCCN: (none), OCLC: 70135738, GPOCat, LL: paper, microfiche, DL, WorldCat}, submitted “Conference Report on H.R. 4939,” 152 Congressional Record H3587-H3627 {pf} {482kb.txt, 358kb.pdf} (U.S. Congress 109-2, daily edition 152:72, June 8 2006) {SuDoc: X/A.109/2:152/72}.
____________________
Query: “No similar provision”?
Some Members of Congress sometimes collude, as principals, for witnesses to lie to Congress.
The Members might as well lie to themselves, too.
And, for the historical record.
And make it unanimous.
–CJHjr
See also: Daniel McGrory, “In the Chaos of Iraq, One Project is on Target: a Giant US Embassy” {copy} (Times, London, May 3 2006); Michael Hirsh, John Barry, Mark Hosenball, Michael Hastings, Scott Johnson, “Stuck in the Hot Zone: Don't dream about full exits. The military is in Iraq for the long haul.” {rss} (Newsweek, May 1 2006); Peter Spiegel, “Bush’s Requests for Iraqi Base Funding Make Some Wary of Extended Stay” {copy} (Los Angeles Times, March 24 2006) (Balad airbase, Al Asad airbase, Tallil airbase, Camp Taji); Charles J. Hanley (Associated Press, Balad airbase), “‘I Think We'll Be Here Forever’” {copy, truncated} (Army Times, March 20 2006) (also al-Qayyarah airbase, in the north); Dahr Jamail, “Iraq: Permanent US Colony” {copy} (Truthout, March 14 2006); Tom Engelhardt, “Can You Say ‘Permanent Bases’? The American Press Can’t” {copy} (Tom Dispatch, February 14 2006); Oliver Poole (al-Asad airbase), “Football and Pizza Point to US Staying for Long Haul” (Daily Telegraph, February 11 2006); Thomas E. Ricks (Balad airbase), “Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel: Most Troops at Balad Never Meet Iraqis” {pf} (Washington Post, February 4 2006); Chris Hughes, “Billion Dollar Bunker: U.S. plans Baghdad embassy more secure than Pentagon” (Daily Mirror, January 3 2006); Bradley Graham (Baghdad), “Commanders Plan Eventual Consolidation of U.S. Bases in Iraq” {pf} (Washington Post, May 22 2005); Thom Shanker, Eric Schmitt, “Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Key Iraq Bases” (New York Times, April 19 2003) {copy}.
The apparent motive of the IAEA voters was their supposed suspicion, that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program.
They all knew, there’s only one way to discover if this is true. And that’s if Iran cooperates with the IAEA. Permitting snap inspections, of sites not permitted by the normal IAEA Safeguards Agreement. Answering questions they don’t normally have to answer.
These inspection powers are contained in the IAEA “Additional Protocol,” which Iran signed on December 18 2003, voluntarily obeying it, since October 21 2003, when it announced it’s intention to sign it. Iran’s parliament (Majlis) has not ratified this Protocol, in view of the turmoil created by the United States assertions — supported by no evidence — that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Ratification is a carrot in Iran’s efforts to face-down these unsubstantiated claims.
However, the government of Iran acted as if the Protocol was in force, as certified many times by the IAEA Director-General, until February 6 2006, when the IAEA Board of Governor’s voted to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. This suspension is another negotiating carrot by Iran, which informed the IAEA Director-General it would reinstate compliance with the Protocol when the U.N. Security Council terminated its involvement in this matter.
The Director General of the IAEA assured his Board of Governors, and the public, there’s no rush. Iran poses no “imminent threat” to anybody, he said, and the purpose of the resolution is merely to “build confidence,” that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
They all knew, Iran’s parliament had passed a law, prohibiting the government of Iran from obeying that Additional Protocol, if the IAEA referred Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
Hence, they all knew, by adopting their resolution, they were terminating the ability of the IAEA to discover if their suspicions are true.
And so, what is the reason(s) for this apparently psychotic behavior, by the IAEA Board of Governors?
The reason(s)
The Director General is mistaken.
There is a rush.
George W. Bush has only 3 more years in office (until January 20 2009).
Tony Blair likely has only 1 year left (until May 2007), although his large crowd of co-conspirators will serve until the next U.K. general election (by May 5 2010).
Could these scheduled departures be a candidate?
For one of the reason(s), we’re searching for?
We’ll come back to this question.
U.S. NPT veto?
The Iranians believe this is the reason.
Not least, because many U.S. officials say it’s the reason:
The U.S. believes, there’s no place in the world for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — guaranteeing nations the right to a peaceable nuclear industry — unless the U.S. has a veto.
But the U.S. has no veto.
So the U.S. does the next best thing.
Just like they did for Iraq:
The U.S. fabricates, and promotes as unassailable “fact,” an endless stream of non-facts:
Accusations, suspicions, innuendos, theories, inferences.
To frustrate and prevent the object nations of U.S. antipathy from exercising their legal rights under the treaty.
The Iranians believe the U.S. wants to badger Iran forever, until:
1. A regime comes to power in Iran which suits the U.S. government, or
2. George W. Bush is ready to give Israel the nod, and the both of them attack Iran, a one-two punch, its nuclear facilities, or the whole country (regime change). With Tony Blair & Co. nodding in agreement. A violent crime, by a very large number of leaders and military officers, in that axis of evil.
Either way, there’s no pleasing George W. Bush & Co., his masters, and the nations they can bully, bribe, and sway.
And so, Iran’s decision to terminate its voluntary compliance, with the IAEA Additional Protocol. And to proceed, under IAEA Safeguards, to develop a nuclear fuel cycle.
Which the United States of America long ago agreed, Iran has the absolute treaty-right to do.
And to Hell with George W. Bush.
And his masters.
And all his cronies too.
A nuclear fuel source they can trust. And depend upon. To supply their own future nuclear electricity plants.
And to export, under IAEA Safeguards. As fuel for all other nations, harassed by the United States, and its cabal of treaty-violaters.
An excellent source of foreign currency. And political influence, among the most of the nations of the world. Those who do not admire the United States of America.
For good reasons. A violent rogue state. Which contempts the rule of law, and the right of others to pursue their happiness.
Particularly the U.S.-vetoed nations. Those, like Iran, whom the U.S. will not permit to generate electricity with nuclear power.
Nuclear energy is expected to become once again a primary source of energy, with the rising demand for oil and gas and the ensuing increase in the prices, which incidentally can sharply accelerate for any political provocation.
We should add to this the concerns about the environment, and the world will have no alternative but to revert back to nuclear energy, at least for decades to come.
This implies that many countries in the developing world would have to acquire or produce their own facilities for nuclear energy as well as nuclear fuel.
The moves towards restrictions on nuclear fuel production under the pretext of non-proliferation are bound to make the developing countries dependant on an exclusive cartel of nuclear fuel suppliers; a cartel that has a manifest record of denials and restrictions for political and commercial reasons.
For Iran, as the chief target of denials, it is only reasonable to continue to develop and expand its nuclear fuel production capability to meet its requirements for nuclear energy.
This process takes time, it takes years to complete. To meet our needs five to ten years from now we need to start today if today is not already late.
For Iran it is a strategic economic goal to be a supplier of the nuclear fuel and energy, for its domestic needs and beyond.
We are a major player in the oil and gas sector.
We will be a player in the nuclear field.
Statement (omitted by the IAEA from its website) by the Iranian representative at an IAEA Board of Governors meeting, August 8-11 2005, reprinted in Iranian Nuclear Policy & Activities: Complementary Information to the Report of the Director General (GOV/2005/67), pages 121-125, at 122 (September 12 2005) (Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Vienna, IAEA Doc. INFCIRC/657, 15 September 2005) {495kb.pdf}.
Query: “Cartel”?
Exactly so:
The President has proposed that uranium enrichment and plutonium separation capabilities — the two primary paths to acquiring fissile material for nuclear weapons — be limited to those states that already operate full-scale, fully-functioning facilities.
In return, he called on the world’s nuclear fuel suppliers to assure supply, in a reliable and cost effective manner, to those states which forego enrichment and reprocessing.
Robert Joseph (Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security (T), U.S. Department of State), prepared statement, “U.S. Strategy to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” {31kb.pdf}, U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy and the Roles and Missions of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy ... Future Years Defense Program (Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Hearing, March 29 2006).
The emperor has spoken.
The emperor will be obeyed.
But, wait a minute:
Query: Will George W. Bush be obeyed?
The world — and the countries that want to secure their future — are all against the monopoly of nuclear technology, by a few countries.
To say that no country has the right, to have access to nuclear technology means, that in 20 years’ time, all of the countries of the world will have to beg, certain Western or European countries, to meet their energy demands.
They will have to beg, for energy, in order to run their lives.
Which country, nation, or honest official, is ready to take that?
Ali Khamenei (Supreme Leader of Iran), speech, on the 17th anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeyni’s death (Ayatollah Khomeyni’s mausoleum, IRINN: Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television, June 4 2006, 6:45 GMT), recorded and translated (presumably) by BBC Monitoring who — conspicuously — have not published their accurate translation, of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech (October 26 2005), to correct the New York Times headline lie: “wipe Israel off the map.”
Proving a secret program
In the course of their psychotic hearing — “psychotic,” because it assumed a fact which is not a fact (so far as the public record shows) — the U.S. Congress House committee had rational discussions, about various issues.
One issue was this:
How to punish the “bad guys” — as they refer to the elected president of Iran, a former mayor of Tehran — and his masters (whom they refer to as “non-elected”), elected by the elected Assembly of Experts.
Without alienating the general populace of Iran.
This is very troublesome task, replied a witness.
Because every last man, woman, and child in Iran, believes their nation does not have a nuclear weapons program. Because that’s what their leaders tell them. Because they’ve seen nothing to make them doubt what they hear. And because it seems a very extravagant waste of money, for no apparent benefit.
These (the general populace of Iran) unanimously believe, Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful, and lawful under the treaty. For electricity generation, the production of isotopes, radioactive markers, and such, routinely used in medicine, agriculture and industry, research, and the like.
And, they believe, if this were not true, they would hear about it. From the U.N. IAEA inspectors, who come and go every few weeks, taking their swipes, to analyze back in their laboratories, looking at their live video feeds, testing their samples, and such.
But the U.N. IAEA inspectors certify, that 100% of Iran’s nuclear program — which the IAEA knows about — is perfectly innocent, peaceable, and lawful, under the treaty.
And so, the notion, that the Iranian people are to be punished — by U.N. sanctions, by a military strike, or whatever — can produce only one result:
Unanimous support, by the populace, for their government (the “bad guys”).
And intense hatred, of the United States of America.
The exact opposite of what the psychotic U.S. officials say they want.
Iran’s nuclear weapons program — the “fact” unchallenged in the Congressional hearing — is a closely guarded secret, the witness said. Only a very few people in Iran know about it. Few, if any, government officials in Iran know about it, he said, apart from the “bad guys,” and only a few of them.
And there, that discussion ended.
Understandably.
Because, if it’s such a secret program, then the witness, who asserts, the supposed secret program to be an unassailable fact—
That witness is a patent liar, because he knows, he does not know, for a fact, that any such program exists.
And because, they have no way of convincing even those who want to be convinced, and pretend to be convinced (their own cheerleaders), that this supposed “fact” exists.
Let alone any member of the United Nations, none of whom has any legal obligation to obey any unlawful Security Council resolution (e.g., sanctions), based on asserted suspicion, instead of facts.
And least of all, the Iranian people.
And because, if the program is such a closely guarded secret, among such a small number of people, then it’s not a “program” at all, of any description the English language recognizes. It’s not approved, adopted, budgeted, funded, administered, staffed, with employees hard at work, to design and implement.
At most, it’s a idea, in the minds of the secret small group (if any). An option, they might think about, down the road, one day (maybe). Likely documented, with a stack of papers in some drawer, somewhere, of the sort every government in the world has plenty of: Analyzing the task, the cost of it, the problems of achieving it, and what use it would be, in the end.
I don’t suppose many people in Iran would feel they deserve punishment for such theoretical musings.
Nor many people elsewhere in the world.
Except psychopaths.
And hoodlums, with an agenda.
The Non-Facts
They’re everywhere.
U.S. speakers.
On radio, TV, print.
Some openly, some secretly, on the U.S. payroll (think tanks, CIA assets).
And their U.K. toddies.
And their media shills.
Asserting as unassailable fact, that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program.
And here’s their great long list, of non-facts, to prove it:
1. Iran has so much oil and gas {get ready for an argument masquerading as fact}, they have no need to generate electricity with nuclear power. Therefore {get ready for a non-fact inference from the argument}, the only explanation for their nuclear program is to build a bomb.
Iran can not merely rely on fossil fuel for its energy for the following considerations:
• Continued use of energy in its present form is bound to turn Iran into a net importer of crude oil and some of its by-products in the coming decades;
• Local use of these resources as fuel will drastically affect Iran’s foreign exchange earnings from export of crude oil and natural gas;
• The utilization of these resources in processing industries such as petrochemicals will generate much greater added value;
• The environmental impact of increased reliance on fossil fuel is a serious concern of the entire international community;
• Iran also has vast gas reserves. But their development is extremely costly and the costs can only be offset by gas export as envisaged and implemented in current gas development projects;
In the projected 7000 megawatt scenario, Iran will annually save 70 million barrels of crude oil based on 60% EAF, with an economic value of over US$1.5 billion annually;
The environmental value will amount to preventing the release into the atmosphere of over 157000 tons of carbon dioxide, 1150 tons of suspending particles, 130 tons of sulfur and 50 tons of nitrous oxide;
Statement (omitted by the IAEA from its website) by the Iranian representative at an IAEA Board of Governors meeting, November 2003 (part of a paper distributed after the statement, entitled “Why Iran’s Nuclear Program is Exclusively Peaceful”), reprinted in Iranian Nuclear Policy & Activities: Complementary Information to the Report of the Director General (GOV/2005/67), pages 73-86, at 78 (12 September 2005) (Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Vienna, IAEA Doc. INFCIRC/657, 15 September 2005) {495kb.pdf}.
–CJHjr
The U.K. had lots of oil and gas.
Once upon a time.
In their sector of the North Sea.
But now, U.K. oil and gas is running out.
Production is declining.
The U.K. now imports gas.
To power its electricity generators.
Looming, in the future?
A balance of payments crisis.
And what that means is this:
Say you want to sell your house, and you’ve been offered a new, high-paying, job, in a company which sells stuff to foreigners.
Are you willing to accept payment, for all this, in Iranian money?
Instead of dollars? Or pounds? Or euros?
Yes. No.
I didn’t think so.
Balance of payments is about this:
How to get foreign money.
To buy foreign things.
Instead of sending it up the smokestack, generating electricity, Iran can sell its oil and gas, to foreigners (Japan, China, India, Pakistan).
To get foreign money.
To buy foreign things.
And to get friends, to stand by their side.
When an axis of evil menaces.
And, once they figure out how to do it, they can build nuclear plants on their borders, and sell electricity to their neighbors, as well.
Like Iraq.
More foreign money.
To buy foreign things.
Iraq
Electricity
Demand, almost 9,000 megawatts last summer, is expected to rise sharply this year ...
“We’re about 4,000 megawatts in the hole nationwide to meet our needs,”
Maj. Al Moff, 4th Infantry Division electricity specialist, noted at a recent internal briefing for division officers. ...
One Iraqi proposal is for a transmission line to import much more than the 100 megawatts of Iranian power Iraq now buys.
The U.S. Embassy won’t talk about it ...
The Iranian Embassy says Tehran has earmarked $1 billion in loans for Iraqi infrastructure, mostly for electrical power, the Iranian news agency reports.
Charles J. Hanley, Sameer N. Yacoub (Associated Press, Baghdad), “Electricity Hits Three-Year Low in Iraq” {copy} (Guardian, London, March 15 2006).
And see Glenn Zorpette, “Re-engineering Iraq” {pf} (IEEE Spectrum, February 2006):
“U.S. and Iraqi officials have spent billions on restoring Iraq’s electrical system. So why is Baghdad getting just 6 hours of electricity a day?”
“To properly rebuild the oil infrastructure ... would cost about $20 billion. Likewise, the electricity sector needs about $20 billion ... (some observers have lately put just that electricity figure at $30 billion to $40 billion). There is no solution to these problems without money, and the money is not there.”
Query: “The money is not there?” Jonathan Weisman, “War Costs Approach $10 Billion a Month” (San Francisco Chronicle, April 20 2006), Jonathan Weisman, “Unforeseen Spending on Materiel Pumps Up Iraq War Bill” {pf} (Washington Post, April 20 2006): “The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found.”
See Amy Belasco (Specialist in National Defense,
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division), The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 (Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress, Order Code: RL33110, April 24 2006) {245kb.pdf}.
Oil
Barbara A. Mikulski: But where are we with the oil?
When is it going to start to pay the bill?
Condoleezza Rice: They are producing currently at below the prewar range of 2 billion to 2.5 billion.
Query: “Billion”? I believe she mispoke. Iraq was producing that many million barrels per day, less than 1 billion per year. –CJHjr
Supplemental Budget Request for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (U.S. Congress 109-2, Senate Appropriations Committee, Hearing, March 9 2006), witnesses: Donald H. Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State), Peter Pace (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), John Abizaid (Commander, U.S. Central Command). C-Span video, 3:05:05. FNS transcript: 9:33 a.m. {Lexis}, CQ transcript {pf}.
____________________
Query: “Below”?
How much?
How much below, the prewar average?
Iraq’s oil production, for the year 2005, averaged 1,878 thousand barrels per day (1.878 million).
It declined sharply, but lately recovered (2005-2006):
| September: | 2,053 |
| October: | 1,803 |
| November: | 1,703 |
| December: | 1,653 |
| 2005 Average: | 1,878 |
| January: | 1,603 |
| February: | 1,803 |
| March: | 1,903 |
| April: | 1,903 |
| May: | 1,903 |
| 5-Month Average: | 1,823 |
_______
Source EIA: International Petroleum Monthly (U.S. EIA: Energy Information Administration), “World Crude Oil Production (Including Lease Condensate) (Thousand Barrels per Day),” Table 4.1a (annual figures, 1970-2005) and Table 1.1a (monthly figures, 1977-present), July 2006 table posted: August 2 2006.
Source IEA: The U.S. EIA government publication, International Petroleum Monthly, cites, for its data, the IEA Monthly Oil Data Service, presumably reflected in its monthly publication: Oil Market Report (IEA: International Energy Agency, an organization of 26 oil importing countries). These IEA monthly reports contain a narrative, about Iraq’s oil production and exports: 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 (menus of pdf files, of less than 100kb.each).
Source OPEC: The U.S. EIA government publication, International Petroleum Monthly, also cites, for its data, the Monthly Oil Market Report (OPEC: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC’s numbers are similar to the above table. See, e.g., OPEC Table 15 (August 2006) {1.2mb.pdf}.
See also Ghaida Ghantous (Doha), “Iraq Says Ready to Negotiate Oilfield Contracts” (Reuters, April 21 2006, 8:39 AM ET): “Iraq pumped some 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) and sold some 1.7 million bpd before the invasion, and prior to the 1990 Gulf War, crude output levels were at around 3 million bpd. ... Shamkhi Faraj, director general of marketing and economics at the ministry of oil ... ‘So far this month we achieved 1.58 for the average of the first 18 days, and hope we can be for the rest of month we’ll be close to 1.5-1.6,’ Faraj said. ‘For the second half, we hope to do 1.6, maybe a little bit higher toward the end of the year.’”
That drop of 450,000 barrels a day (September-January), at $50 a barrel, is $22.5 million per day, in lost revenue, $8.2 billion per year. At $70 a barrel, it’s $31.5 million per day, in lost revenue, $11.5 billion per year. See also Walid Khadduri, “$18 billion—Iraq’s Annual Oil Losses” (Al-Hayat, April 11 2006): “...stolen and siphoned wealth ... smuggling, sabotage, and lost opportunities.”
The U.S. is stealing Iraq’s oil and gas in two ways:
1. Selling off all Iraq’s unproven reserves, which is the most of Iraq’s oil and gas. This transfer of national wealth, from the Iraq State (and its people), to oil companies, was made possible by the U.S. imposing the condition in Iraq’s constitution, that exclusive state ownership, via the Iraqi state oil company, applies only to existing proven reserves.
2. Imposing an opaque “production sharing agreement” with a robber-baron high percentage payable to oil companies, equivalent to what they might deserve for the risk and expense of drilling in the deep sea. In Iraq, you can get oil, practically by poking a stick the ground: No risk, no unusual expense, warranting a very low percentage.
The details of this, I haven’t yet studied.
The press has completely ignored this massive theft.
See:
• Greg Palast, “Secret US Plans For Iraq's Oil” {pf} (BBC News, Newsnight, BBC TV-2, London, Thursday March 17 2005, 10:30 p.m.) {BBCcat d:andm749n}, video (bb) {11:24, 2.88mb.rm, bb, 17.58mb.rm, search, search, rss, rss, rss} {BBC bb player, bb source}: “A joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine: The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq’s oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC’s Newsnight has revealed,” also broadcast, and Greg Palast interviewed by Amy Goodman, “U.S. Broadcast Exclusive {copy}: Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil Spark Political Fight Between Neocons and Big Oil” (Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report, New York City, March 21 2005), video/audio {59:08, audio 27.1mb.mp3} {Palast 19:48 at 12:46-32:35: video/audio}. Greg Palast, “OPEC on the March: Why Iraq Still Sells Its Oil à la Cartel” (Harper's Magazine, volume 310, number 1859, New York City, April 2005, pages 74-76), reported, “Palast, neocons, Iraq oil, and madness” (Prairie Weather, blog, March 19 2005). Greg Palast, interviewed by Scott Horton (blog, blog), “The BBC's Greg Palast returns to the show to discuss his new Harper's article, ‘OPEC on the March’” (Weekend Interview Show with Scott Horton, Austin Texas, Saturday March 26 2005), audio {22:42, 2.6mb.mp3}. Censored 2007, Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007 (SSU: Sonoma State University, Project Censored, Rohnert Park California) (“The News That Didn't Make the News”).
• Greg Muttitt, “Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth” {copy} {2.3mb.pdf} (Platform, London, November 2005, with GPF: Global Policy Forum, IPS: Institute for Policy Studies, NEF: New Economics Foundation, Oil Change International, War on Want).
• Karen Button, “Who Will Possess Iraq’s Oilfields?” (URUKNET, February 15 2006).
• Kevin Zeese, “Looting By Another Name: The Corporate Takeover of Iraq’s Economy” (Counterpunch, May 10 2006) {copy}.
Reconstruction
The Security Council, ...
12. Notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq and to be audited by independent public accountants ...
13. Notes further that the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq shall be disbursed at the direction of the Authority {U.S.A.}, in consultation with the Iraqi interim administration, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14 below;
14. Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq’s infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq; ...
17. Requests further that the Secretary-General transfer as soon as possible to the Development Fund for Iraq ... all surplus funds in the escrow accounts ...; ...
20. Decides that all export sales of petroleum ... audited by independent public accountants ... in order to ensure transparency, and decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 21 below, all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq until such time as an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq is properly constituted;
21. Decides further that 5 per cent of the proceeds referred to in paragraph 20 above shall be deposited into the Compensation Fund ...
23. Decides that all Member States in which there are:
(a) funds or other financial assets or economic resources of the previous Government of Iraq or its state bodies, corporations, or agencies, located outside Iraq as of the date of this resolution, or
(b) funds or other financial assets or economic resources that have been removed from Iraq, or acquired, by Saddam Hussein or other senior officials of the former Iraqi regime and their immediate family members, including entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by them or by persons acting on their behalf or at their direction,
shall freeze without delay those funds or other financial assets or economic resources and ... immediately shall cause their transfer to the Development Fund for Iraq ...
S/RES/1483 (U.N. Security Council, May 22 2003) {58kb.pdf, copy, copy}. And see SC/7765 (press release); S/PV.4761 (verbatim record of the meeting) {72kb.pdf} {via this, this, or ODS}.
• Ed Harriman, “So, Mr Bremer, Where Has All the Money Gone?” (The Guardian, July 7 2005); Ed Harriman, “Where Has All the Money Gone?” (27:13 London Review of Books, July 7 2005); Ed Harriman, “Cronyism and Kickbacks” (28:2 London Review of Books, January 27 2006).
• “The 50 Billion Dollar Robbery” (BBC Newsnight, March 15 2006), video {bb} (13:36): “Three years after the start of the Iraq war, where has the 50 billion dollars of reconstruction money gone? Billions are unaccounted for ... scams and frauds ...”
• “Iraq’s Missing Billions” (Channel 4, Dispatches, March 20 2006, 8:00 p.m.), video {
