Iran nuclear: War power, U.S. Congress U.N. resolutions: S. Con. Res. 78, H. Con. Res. 341

Query: “Wipe Israel off the map”?

Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say this?

And, if so, what did he mean?

These are very simple questions to answer.

If you have a transcript, of what he said, and a faithful translation of it.

But these transcripts and translations are carefully concealed, by U.S. and U.K. intelligence officers, implementing the political policy of their governments, to fan the flames of fear, to beat the drums of war.

And I refer to FBIS (CIA) and BBC Monitoring (MI6), who record and translate every word Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks, on every such occasion (TV and radio).

Bought and paid for, by U.S. and U.K. taxpayers, but concealed from them, and from Members of Congress (who don’t want to know what he said).

For an explanation, of what I’m talking about, see “FBIS,” an account of a prima facie criminal lie to Congress, by John Bolton, in a similar effort, that time to misquote Fidel Castro, to falsely portray him as a “terrorist.”

Whatever he said, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reported as simply quoting the words of his nation’s founding father, in 1979 (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini).

And what that means is this:

There’s nothing new about what he said.

Iran has not suddenly become a new threat, following the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iran’s policy on Israel is unchanged from 1979.

By concealing what he said, U.S. official liars — and that includes most of the Members of the U.S. Congress — want the public to believe that a new danger has suddenly appeared, which must be dealt with.

Whatever danger Iran’s policy on Israel may be, there’s nothing new about it.

The nation’s founding father explicitly referred to the Israeli “regime,” not to the Israeli people.

 

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902-1989), interview with the West German Radio-Television network, November 8 1979.

 

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, speech (Jewish Society of Iran, May 14 1979).

 

Juan Cole (Professor of History, University of Michigan), “Hitchens the Hacker” (Informed Comment, May 3 2006).

Subsequently: Jonathan Steele, “If Iran Is Ready to Talk, the US Must Do So Unconditionally” (Guardian, June 2 2006) {copy} (“It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war ...”). Ethan Bronner, Nazila Fathi, “Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel” (New York Times, June 11 2006). Jonathan Steele, “Lost in Translation” (Guardian Unlimited, June 14 2006). Juan Cole, “Steele on Ahmadinejad: Of Arenas of Time and Intransitive Verbs” (Informed Comment, June 15 2006). Philip Weiss, “Burning Cole” (The Nation, July 3 2006) {pf}: “Yale was drawn to Cole by top-rank scholarly achievement ... Campus Watch, a pro-Israel group that monitors scholars' statements about the Middle East ... Jewish Week: ‘... at least four major Jewish donors ... have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole's appointment be denied’... Yale's Senior Appointments Committee ... rejected Cole after three other Yale committees had signed off on him ... Cole: ‘If the US really wanted to stop terrorism, it would invade the West Bank and Gaza and liberate the Palestinians to have their own state and self-respect’.”

 
 

Iran’s policy on Israel is the same as U.S. policy on Iran:

They want regime change:

They want to free the people of Israel from dominion by Zionists. An aggressive, racist, apartheid, violent, criminal, political clique, which corrupts the character of its citizens, wages war on their neighbors, steals their land, destroys their houses, their farms, their livelihoods, their water, and corrals them into open prisons, separated from their friends, their families, their neighbors, dominated by military forces deaf to their cries.

Iran’s policy on Israel is like Sinn Fein’s policy on Ireland: They aspire to a single state, created by, and serving, all its residents.

But, all Iranian officials say the same thing:

They will accept whatever solution the people living there adopt, of their own free will, which cannot be expressed during a military occupation, the Israeli occupation of territory outside its 1949 borders.

The very same borders the U.S. government itself also insists upon (prior to George W. Bush).

 

Hadi Nejad Hosseinian (then Iran U.N. Ambassador), statement, Resumed Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly on Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the Rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 14th meeting, New York City, October 20 2000), U.N. Doc. A/ES-10/PV.14, pages 18-20 at 20 {538kb.pdf, via this, or ODS} (U.N. General Assembly, Official Verbatim Record, October 20 2000, 3:00-10:15 p.m.).

 

Hussein Ali Montazeri (Grand Ayatollah), 84 year old government critic (“no newspaper dares to print a word I say”), interview in Qom, March 8 2006, by Channel 4 News, reported by Jonathan Miller (Channel 4 News, London, March 13 2006, 7:29 p.m.) (video not posted).

 

Query: “United Nation’s responsibility”?

Yes.

Jimmy Carter agrees with Hussein Ali Montazeri:

 

Jimmy Carter (U.S. President, Jan. 20 1977-1981 Jan. 20), speech, “The Major Obstacles to Peace in the Holy Land” (Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, March 2 2006), further cited below.

 

Query: “Denied the existence of the holocaust”?

Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do this?

Another very simple question to answer.

If you have a transcript, of what he said, and a faithful translation of it.

Which U.S. and U.K. intelligence officers, once again, conceal.

But the reports of what he said are plain, that he absolutely did not deny the holocaust.

He questioned the holocaust, and then he immediately proceeded to speak on the assumption that the holocaust is an historical fact.

Not least because, he said, Europeans themselves admitted there was a holocaust, and admitted that they did it (a previous generation of Europeans).

No holocaust denier ever made such an assumption or ever accepted such confessions.

This indicates the mind of a person who is personally not acquainted with the evidence, but who recognizes that it’s a generally accepted fact and, hence, likely true.

My guess is, the holocaust evidence has not been translated into Persian (Farsi), the language of Iran.

The most extravagant trial in the history of the world, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, was conducted, with simultaneous translations, in its four official languages (English, French, German, Russian). The transcripts were published by the IMT Secretariat (1947-1949) {SuDoc: W 1.2:C 86, ISBN: 0404536506, LCCNs: 47031575, 70145536, 95081592, WorldCat}, in those four languages, and the U.K. government also published the trial transcripts (1946-1951), but not the many volumes of documents, and only in English: The Trial of German Major War Criminals {ISBN: 0404536506, LCCN: 47015265, WorldCat}. Affidavits and documents were received by the prosecutors, in about 150 languages, but little of that is published, except those referred to in the trial.

I don’t recollect Iran, and it’s language, had anything to do with that trial. Adolph Hitler didn’t send anybody to Iran, to murder anybody.

The 12 additional big trials, before U.S. Military Tribunals, were later published, but only in English, by the U.S. government (1949-1953). These too quote many thousand pages of documents and testimony. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 {SuDoc: D 102.8, ditto, LCCNs: 49045929, 97071903, WorldCat}.

And likewise, the mostly unpublished, trial transcripts, of U.S. and U.K. military court martial trials, and trials in other countries, in their own languages. A few of these trials are reported, in a 15 thin-volume set, published, but only in English, by the U.K. government (1947-1949): Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals (“Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission”) {LCCNs: 47022747, 97080284, WorldCat}.

 
 

And so, if you’ve never read any of that evidence, and you’re a public figure, and you’ve listened all your life to Israeli government officials telling lies, about everything under the sun, you will naturally be cautious, in public, endorsing facts which you don’t know to be facts.

A good role model, for U.S. government officials, who continuously, endlessly, relentlessly, assert to be unassailable facts, what they know for a fact, they do not know to be a fact (a “reckless lie”). And omit to mention contrary facts, which they do know to be facts (willfully “misleading” “lies”). And a good example is this very topic, their chorus of deceitful assertions, about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very smart, very rational, character, first in his class in school. That indicates they don’t teach anything about the holocaust in Iranian schools, at least primary and secondary schools. He’s an engineer (as I recollect), and so in university he likely did not study such matters there either.

Nobody taught me anything about the holocaust, in my 19 years in American schools, grammar school (1948-1956), high school (1956-1960), university (1960-1964), law school (1964-1967).

And, on this topic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provides a second excellent role model too, another sharp contrast, to deceitful U.S. officials, and that includes most members of Congress:

He’s called for an examination, by Persians, into the facts of the holocaust, to discover what’s true and what, if anything, is untrue.

U.S. government officials, by contrast, are very hostile, to any honest inquiry into facts, about anything, which might thwart their many aggressive, dishonest, political, agendas. And so too the Israelis.

It’s pointless, foolish, and irrational, to pretend people can be compelled, and coerced, to believe a fact. And particularly a fact alien to their history, their culture, their language.

And, it’s likewise foolish and irrational for Iranians to allow themselves to remain in ignorance, of an historical fact as important as the holocaust.

A fact grounded on the most important issues in politics:

Educating Iranians about these important facts, and issues, is a very desirable, very laudable initiative, by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And that inquiry can be conducted only by Iranians themselves. People they can trust.

They need to do it.

Leaders, they can trust, need to spend the time necessary, to satisfy themselves about the facts.

And then, those leaders need to make their public pronouncements:

That the holocaust is indeed an historical fact.

That all those good, honest, people did indeed, do all those horrible, criminal, things, and murdered in cold blood, millions, and millions, of people.

That those good, honest, people, did indeed, stand by, and do nothing to stop it.

That many of those good, honest, people, participated in these crimes, without knowing, for sure, that’s what they were doing.

That those good, honest, people, yet had their suspicions, and did not, or could not, investigate, did not, or could not, intervene.

That some of those good, honest, people, nevertheless did what they could, to stop it.

It’s a massive, expensive, lengthy, undertaking.

Still today, a generation later, Iranians may still be translating into Persian, the documents they seized at the American embassy, in November 1979.

At least 77 volumes they’ve published so far, but very few libraries have a copy:

Iran: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1977-1980 (National Security Archive).

Translating just the 42 volumes of the IMT trial, and the 15 volumes of NMT trials, is a staggering prospect. And there is much, much, else besides.

But, today, computers can likely do the bulk of that work, the first draft, which editors can then start work with.

Provided, the Iranians can satisfy themselves, that the electronic texts they could start with — which have already been created over many years, at great expense — are accurate copies, of the original publications, which themselves are faithful copies, of the original transcripts and documents, and that the original transcripts themselves, are faithful to the audio, in the archives.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s plain purpose was not to doubt the holocaust.

His was a rhetorical device to focus minds on what he was about to say. His argument, which is this:

The state of Israel was created by Europeans, to finish Adolph Hitler’s work for him, the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Europe.

They copied what Adolph Hitler did in Poland, his Lebensraum policy: They seized land, expelled its owners, shipped in settlers, who took over all those seized farms and houses, on the pretense they owned them.

Adolph Hitler did not invent this policy.

He merely copied the example of the British. Who sent in an army, murdered a segment of the population of Ireland (“subhumans,” as the British described them), drove the rest into the hills, seized their good land, set up a company (Ulster), and sold off the land, to British settlers, on the pretense they owned it.

And the Americans. Who sent in an army, murdered most of the native population (“subhumans,” as the Americans described them), drove the few survivors into the hills, seized their land, and sold it off, to American settlers, on the pretense they owned it.

Completely innocent people, having nothing whatsoever to do with the holocaust, have themselves been victimized by a brand new holocaust, against them.

“Holocaust has been continuing in Palestine over the past 60 years,” he said.

As it’s this, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.

Not what the Israeli-Jews, and their American mouthpieces, pretend he said (concealing the transcripts).

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, the holocaust has been exploited, by Israeli-Jews, and by their American backers, as a justification, to launch a new holocaust, based on the myth, that Israeli-Jews are victims (in the present day).

Plain for the whole world to see, Israeli-Jews are oppressors, not victims.

Palestinians are victims, not Israeli-Jews.

And Israeli-Arabs are victims (20% of Israelis), not Israeli-Jews.

This myth — and the holocaust, against the Palestinians, perpetrated by Israeli-Jews, and by their American bankers and backers, based on this myth — is a betrayal of the original holocaust.

The meaning of that holocaust.

The memory of the victims of that holocaust.

Every last one of those holocaust victims would be horrified and repulsed and revolted at the present day holocaust—

Waged in their memory.

Justified by their suffering.

Against the Palestinians.

Powerless victims.

Just like the original holocaust victims.

In the grip of a merciless tyrant.

With a heart of darkness.

An abomination of their memory.

A repudiation, of the very meaning of the holocaust.

Mocking its motto:

“Never again.”

This is what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad apparently said.

And this is why he won the election.

He speaks truth to power.

What is the obvious solution for this?

The solution, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s message, is this:

The people responsible for the holocaust should be held accountable for their violent crime, by resolving all the consequences of it, inside their own territory, and renounce, and terminate, their new, ongoing, holocaust against the Palestinians.

Europeans should create a new state of Israel, in the heart of Europe, on land bought and paid for, by eminent domain, and all the foreign settlers in Israel returned to this relocated state, the territory from whence they came.

Just as the German settlers, Adolph Hitler sent to Poland, were expelled from Poland, back to Germany, at the end of the war.

And to those who say the evil done the Palestinians does not amount to a “holocaust,” because Israel has not gassed the whole population, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says this:

It’s a holocaust nonetheless:

Thousands of people killed.

And for the survivors: Eternal slavery. Eternal theft, of homes, property, belongings. Eternal imprisonment, in a land with no exits, no livelihood, no hope.

For the survivors, it’s not yet death.

That’s true.

It’s worse than death.

This is a rational argument.

A moral argument.

A compelling argument.

An honest analysis, of a vast conspiracy, of crime and other illegalities: The Palestinian Israel problem.

Financed, facilitated, incited, aided and abetted, conspired in, day by day, by “The Oppressor,” “The Great Satan,” the United States of America.

With all of Europe.

Averting their gaze.

And whispering:

“Amen.”

____________________

 

“Who loves you, baby”

Jeremy M. Sharp, U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2006 Request, pages 15, 17, 7 (Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress, Order Code: RL32260, updated June 13 2005) {132kb.pdf, copy, copy}.

 

Clyde R. Mark, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, pages: summary, 1, 5-6, 12 (Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress, Order Code: IB85066, updated April 26 2005) {88kb.pdf, copy, copy}. And see Richard H. Curtiss (editor), “The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel” (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 1997, Pages 43-45) {copy}.

____________________

 

Slush fund?

Is this a slush fund?

The CIA and U.S. military are the king and queen of slush, I suppose.

But this, too, is a mighty big pot of unaccountable cash: $3 billion per year.

U.S. aid to Israel is deposited in a New York City bank account and subject to no audits.

Tens of millions of dollars are likewise deposited into the bank accounts of — guess who — Members of Congress, who vote to not require transparency and audits.

“Contributions” by Zionist sympathizers.

Are these deposits a mere coincidence?

Or are they kick-backs?

Routed through intermediaries.

A massive criminal enterprise.

As far as I’m concerned, the burden of proof is on Members of Congress, to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, they are not members of a RICO criminal enterprise.

Because they have the power, to require transparency, and audits, which can supply that proof.

And they don’t.

I guess they have good reason, to live under a cloud of suspicion.

A cloud they could easily banish.

Do they prefer a cloud?

To enable a criminal enterprise?

And disable the public, from proving it?

This unnecessary cloud demonstrates, that fundamental change is required, in Washington D.C.

Not just a change of faces.

____________________

 

Israeli Settlements

Jimmy Carter (U.S. President, Jan. 20 1977-1981 Jan. 20), speech, “The Major Obstacles to Peace in the Holy Land” (Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, March 2 2006) {FNS transcript, audio (21.9mb.mp3), video (108.7mb.wmv) (01:03:37)}, quoted answers 35:20-35:40, 47:20-48:00. And see Jimmy Carter, “Colonization of Palestine Precludes Peace” (“This op-ed was published in Ha'aretz and at least 70 other newspapers worldwide,” March 13 2006) {copy, copy}.

But see this abrupt and dramatic change in U.S. policy, as George W. Bush would have it, apparently endorsing Israel’s existing theft and fragmentation of Palestinian land:

George W. Bush (U.S. President, Jan. 20 2001-2009 Jan. 20), “Letter From President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon” {pf} (White House, April 14 2004), 40:16 WCPD 598-600 {8kb.txt, 54kb.pdf, copy}. See also “Statement by the President” {pf} (White House, April 14 2004), retitled “Statement on the Israeli Disengagement Plan and the Middle East Peace Process,” 40:16 WCPD 596-598 {8kb.txt, 55kb.pdf, copy}; “President Bush Commends Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's Plan” {pf} (White House, Cross Hall, April 14 2004, 1:05-1:29 p.m.) {video 23:50, audio 23:50}, retitled “The President’s News Conference With Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel,” 40:16 WCPD 592-596 {19kb.txt, 77kb.pdf, copy} {Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (purl), SuDoc: AE 2.109:40/16, ISSN: 0511-4187, LCCN: 65009929, OCLC: 1769543, GPOcat, LL: paper, DL, WorldCat}.

Gwynne Dyer, “US Support for Moving Borders Is Just a Charade” (The Border Mail, April 18 2006):

See “Territories occupied by Israel since June 1967” (U.N. Map No. 3243 Rev.4, June 11 1997) {337kb.gif}; “Map showing Israeli settlements established in the Territories occupied in June 1967” (U.N. Map No. 3070 Rev.17, October 1 1996) {114kb.gif}; “Population Map of the West Bank and Gaza Strip” (Peace Now, Settlements Watch Team, November 2000) {3118kb.pdf}; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (U.N. I.C.J., July 9 2004) (it’s illegal to build a wall on your neighbor’s land) {summary, docket, opinion, 428kb.pdf}; U.N. resolutions by the Security Council (S/Res/), General Assembly (A/Res/), Economic and Social Council (E/Res/), Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/Res/), Commission on the Status of Women (E/CN.6/Res/); and other documents on the “Question of Palestine.”

____________________

 

Complicity

John Mearsheimer (Professor of Political Science, co-director of the Program on International Security Policy, University of Chicago), Stephen Walt (Academic Dean, Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University), “The Israel Lobby” (London Review of Books, March 23 2006, volume 28, number 6), footnoted version, John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” (Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Faculty Research Working Paper Number: RWP06-011, March 13 2006) {1411kb.pdf} (“about 250,000 downloads,” as of about May 1: Walt, speaking on C-Span, June 23 2006), response to responses, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, “Letters: The Israel Lobby” (London Review of Books, May 11 2006, volume 28, number 9) {copy}.

 

• Noam Chomsky, “The Israel Lobby?” (ZNet, March 28 2006) {copy} (the Israel Lobby preaches to the long-ago converted, and the title of the sermon is “Oil”).

• Tony Judt, “A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy” (New York Times, April 19 2006) {copy}: “American influence in that part of the world now rests almost exclusively on our power to make war: which means in the end that it is no influence at all. ... Europeans, Latin Americans, Africans or Asians. Why, they ask, has America chosen to lose touch with the rest of the international community on this issue? Americans may not like the implications of this question. But it is pressing. It bears directly on our international standing and influence; and it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.”

• Jim Lobe, “Jewish Community Worried About Iran Backlash” (Inter Press Service, May 9 2006) {copy}: “While most neo-conservatives are Jewish, most U.S. Jews, while very sympathetic to Israel, are not neo-conservatives.”

• Michael Massing, “The Storm over the Israel Lobby” (New York Review of Books, June 8 2006): “The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes political contributions, lists a total of thirty-six pro-Israel PACs, which together contributed $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Pro-Israel donors give many millions more ... What AIPAC wants can be summed up very succinctly: a powerful Israel free to occupy the territory it chooses; enfeebled Palestinians; and unquestioning support for Israel by the United States ... while AIPAC focuses most of its efforts on Congress, the executive branch is more often lobbied by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations ... the heads of more than fifty American Jewish organizations.”

• Betty McCollum (Member of Congress), “A Letter to AIPAC” (New York Review of Books, Volume 53, Number 10, June 8 2006): “Until I receive a formal, written apology from your organization, I must inform you, that AIPAC representatives are not welcome in my offices, or for meetings with my staff.”

• Kathleen and Bill Christison, “The Power of the Israel Lobby: Its Origins and Growth” (CounterPunch, June 16/18 2006): “Policymakers began negotiating with AIPAC before presenting legislation in order to help assure passage, and Congress consulted the lobby on pending legislation. Congress eagerly embraced almost every legislative initiative proposed by the lobby and came to rely on AIPAC for information on all issues related to the Middle East. The close cooperation between the administration and AIPAC soon began to stifle discourse inside the bureaucracy. Middle East experts in the State Department and other agencies were almost completely cut out of decision-making, and officials throughout government became increasingly unwilling to propose policies or put forth analysis likely to arouse opposition from AIPAC or Congress. ... It is the very power of the lobby to continue shaping the public mindset, to mold thinking and, perhaps most important, to instill fear of deviation that brings this intellectual political class together in an unswerving determination to work for Israel. ... No conceivable U.S. national interest is served ... by its support for Israel’s harshly oppressive policy in the West Bank and Gaza, and furthermore this support is a dangerous liability ... a major cause of terrorism against the U.S. and the West. The impetus for oppressing the Palestinians ... supporting Israel and facilitating this oppression has come, very clearly and directly, from the lobby.”

• “Does the Israel Lobby Have Too Much Power?” (CEIP: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Foreign Policy, Roundtable, July/August 2006), posted before June 23 2006, “Political scientists John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt sparked a firestorm when they raised questions about the power the Israel lobby wields over U.S. foreign policy. Now, in an exclusive FP Roundtable, they face off with four distinguished experts of the Middle East over whether the influence of the Israel lobby is ordinary or extraordinary:” John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, “Unrestricted Access;” Aaron Friedberg, “An Uncivilized Argument;” Dennis Ross, “The Mind-set Matters;” Shlomo Ben-Ami, “The Complex Truth;” Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Dangerous Exemption;” John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, “Mearsheimer and Walt Respond.”

• John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, interviewed by Brian Lamb (C-Span founder and CEO), on Washington Journal (C-Span, June 23 2006), “discuss lobbying for Israel,” C-Span video {1:00:30}, their first TV appearance, since publishing their paper, on March 23 2006.

  –CJHjr

Jack Straw (U.K. Foreign Secretary), interviewed by James Naughtie (BBC Radio 4, Today, January 13 2006, 8:10-8:23 a.m., at 8:20-8:21 a.m.) {audio, 13:54, at 9:02-11:16} {transcript}.

 

Jack Straw (U.K. Foreign Secretary), interviewed by John Humphrys (BBC Radio 4, Today, March 13 2006, 8:10-8:22 a.m., at 8:14-8:17 a.m.) {audio, 13:01, at 4:25} {5465kb.mp3}.

 

Jack Straw (U.K. Foreign Secretary), interviewed by Andrew Marr (BBC TV One, Sunday A.M., April 9 2006, 9:00-10:00 a.m.) {video (bb), 1:02:23, 43:45-57:40 (bb) at 48:20-49:29 (bb)} {transcript, transcript}.

_______________

 

Query: “Suspicion”?

The High Command Case {4932kb.html, excerpt}, 10-11 N.M.T., at 11 N.M.T. 531 (opinion) (U.S. Military Tribunal 5, Nürnberg Germany, October 27-28 1948), volumes 10-11 of Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nurenberg, October 1946–April 1949 (U.S. G.P.O., 15 volumes, 1949-1953), volume 10 (1951, 31+1308 pages), volume 11 (1951, 31+755 pages) {SuDoc: D 102.8, ditto, LCCN: 49045929, 97071903, OCLC: 12799641, WorldCat}.

  –CJHjr

Query: “In defiance of international agreements”?

Jacques Chirac never made any such allegation, that Iran is “pursuing nuclear activities in defiance of international agreements.”

And he would be a very foolish man to say so, as Iran appears to be in full compliance, with all its obligations and, in addition, all its voluntary commitments, which it has no legal obligation to offer.

Misquoting Jacques Chirac — and waging war on the basis of malicious lies about what he said — is a favorite criminal lie, and criminal conspiracy, by U.S. officials.

  –CJHjr

Query: “Many failures ... since 2003”?

 

Mohamed ElBaradei (IAEA Director General), Report to the IAEA Board of Governors, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, ¶ 47, page 10 (IAEA Doc. GOV/2006/15, February 27 2006, derestricted March 8 2006) {80kb.pdf}.

CJHjr note: These are procedural reporting disputes, not any violation of the substantive provisions of the treaty. Iran meanwhile reported everything the IAEA says it should have reported, even those things Iran says it has no obligation to report.

 

Mohamed ElBaradei (IAEA Director General), Report to the IAEA Board of Governors, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, ¶¶ 36-37, page 9 (IAEA Doc. GOV/2005/67, 2 September 2005) {94kb.pdf}.

_______________

 

Query: “Suspension commitments”?

Paris Agreement, page 3 (November 15 2004) (IAEA Doc. INFCIRC/637, 26 November 2004) {80kb.pdf}.

And see Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Vienna, letter dated August 1 2005, to the IAEA, reporting failure of negotiations and resumption of uranium conversion under IAEA Safeguards), IAEA Doc. INFCIRC/648 (1 August 2005) {101kb.pdf}. See also Gordon Prather, “Anti-Iranian Hysteria” (LewRockwell.com, October 10 2005).

My, my.

An agreement, which assured Iran, and promised Iran, that “the E3/EU recognise Iran’s rights under the NPT.”

Now what more?

Could Iran possibly want?

Iran, in a timely manner, submitted its proposal to the E3/EU, on March 23 2005 (detailed in INFCIRC/648, linked just above, page 3).

But the E3/EU did not submit their promised proposal.

By the end of July, Iran learned, what the E3/EU had in mind, and declared negotiations had failed.

A week later, the E3/EU submitted their proposal.

Now why did Iran announce the failure of negotiations, under the Paris Agreement?

Could this be the reason?

The E3/EU proposal:

E3/EU proposal under the Paris Agreement, page 23, ¶ 34, “Framework for a Long-Term Agreement Between the Islamic Republic of Iran and France, Germany & the United Kingdom, with the Support of the High Representative of the European Union” (August 5 2005) (IAEA Doc. INFCIRC/651, 8 August 2005) {235kb.pdf} {copy}.

No different, {copy} from {pf} Brazil —

No different, from Japan —

No different, from Germany, Netherlands —

Enriching uranium, for electricity plant fuel, is one of “Iran’s rights under the NPT.”

Which the E3/EU claimed they recognized.

But then proceeded to deny Iran, by their proposal.

The next decades will see an enormous amount of money, spent all over the world, buying nuclear electricity plants, and the fuel to power them.

But few of the world’s 191 countries can foresee — or are willing to risk — dealing with a cartel of thugs and hoodlums, who view most countries in the world as some species of enemy.

They want an honest supplier.

For their nuclear electricity plants.

A honorable supplier, they can trust.

To honor their agreements.

And not suddenly turn their electricity plants into a herd of $5 billion White Elephants.

With sanctions.

On the fuel to power them.

On the parts to complete them.

On the repairs, maintenance, and safety modifications they will require.

Over their long lives.

Iran has declared:

 

A lot of countries will be mighty glad to see them play.

That’s my guess.

  –CJHjr

Query: “Non-compliance”?

Contradiction and Legal Problems of the Board of Governors Resolution on the Implementation of the NPT Safeguard Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran September 2005 (GOV/2005/77), pages 7-8 (November 4 2005) (Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Vienna, IAEA Doc. INFCIRC/661, 17 November 2005) {401kb.pdf (image only), 275kb.pdf (image+text)}.

  –CJHjr

Query: “Respond to and deal with”?

An excellent suggestion.

Here are some paragraphs, for Russia and China, to table at the U.N. Security Council, to provide context (which the U.S. Congress omits to mention), for Iran’s pre-2003 secret activities:

  –CJHjr

Michael Everett Capuano, written statement, “Personal Explanation,” 152 Congressional Record H351 {3kb.txt, 47kb.pdf} (February 16 2006, daily edition 152:20, U.S. Congress 109-2) {SuDoc: X/A.109/2:152/20}.

Patrick J. Buchanan, “Of Imperial Presidents and Congressional Cowards” {copy} (WND: WorldNetDaily, April 28 2006). And see Paul Craig Roberts, “Endgame for the Constitution” (CounterPunch, May 2 2006) {copy}: “Unless Bush is impeached and turned over to the war crimes court in the Hague, Americans will never reclaim their liberties from an executive branch that has established itself as the sole judge of the limits of its powers.”

  –CJHjr