Resolving Nuclear Arms Claims Hinges on Iran’s Demand for Documents

Resolving Nuclear Arms Claims Hinges on Iran’s Demand for Documents

Gareth Porter, Anti War, March 04 2014: … senior officials of  the German intelligence agency BND had told him in November 2004 that the BND   had gotten the entire collection of documents from a member of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq   (MEK) who had been one of their sources, and that they did not consider the  source to be reliable.The MEK, considered by the …

Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) Our Men in Iran? (Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, April 2012)

(Rajavi from Saddam to AIPAC)

link to the source

Resolving Nuclear Arms Claims Hinges on Iran’s Demand for Documents

The Barack Obama administration has demanded that Iran resolve “past and present   concerns” about the “possible military dimensions” of its nuclear program as  a condition for signing a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Tehran.

Administration officials have suggested that Iran must satisfy the International  Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the allegations in the agency’s report   that it has had a covert nuclear weapons program in the past.

But the record of negotiations between Iran and the IAEA shows Tehran has been   ready for the past two years to provide detailed responses to all the charges   of an Iranian nuclear weapons work, and that the problem has been the refusal   of the IAEA to share with Iran the documentary evidence on which those allegations   have been based.

The real obstacle to providing those documents, however, has long been a U.S.   policy of refusing to share the documents on the assumption that Iran must confess   to having had a weaponization program.

The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, declared Feb. 12, “The authenticity of each allegation should be proven first, then the person  who submitted it to the agency should give us the genuine document. When we  are assured of the authenticity, then we can talk to the agency.”

Neither the IAEA nor the Obama administration has responded publicly to Salehi’s   statement. In response to a query from IPS, the spokesperson for the National Security Council, Bernadette Meehan, said the NSC officials would have no comment on the Iranian demand for access to the documents.

The spokesperson for IAEA Director Yukiya Amano did not answer a request from IPS Thursday for the agency’s comment.

But a draft   text of an agreement being negotiated between the IAEA and Iran dated Feb. 20, 2012, shows that the only difference between the two sides on resolving   issues about allegations of Iranian nuclear weapons work was Iran’s demand to  have the documents on which the allegations are based.

The draft text, which was later published on the website of the Arms Control   Association, reflects Iran’s deletions and additions to the original IAEA proposal.   It calls for Iran to provide a “conclusive technical assessment” of a set of six “topics”, which included 12 distinct charges in the report in a particular order that the IAEA desired.

Iran and the IAEA agreed that Iran would provide a “conclusive technical assessment”  on a list of 10 issues in a particular order. The only topics that Iran proposed   to delete from the list were “management structure” and “Procurement activities”,  which did not involve charges of specifically nuclear weapons work.

The two sides had agreed in the draft that the IAEA would provide a “detailed   explanation of its concerns”. But they had failed to agree on provision of documents to Iran by the IAEA. The IAEA had proposed language that the agency would provide Iran with the relevant documents only “where appropriate”. Iran was insisting   on deletion of that qualifying phrase from the draft.

The first priority on the list of topics to which both sides had agreed in   the draft was “Parchin” – referring to the claim of intelligence from an unnamed   state that Iran had installed a large cylinder at the Parchin military reservation.

A November 2011 IAEA report suggested the cylinder was intended for testing nuclear weapons designs and had been built with the assistance of a “foreign   expert”. Iran also agreed to respond in detail on the issue of the “foreign   expert”, who has been identified as Vyacheslav Danilenko, a Ukrainian specialist   on nanodiamonds.

The evidence associated with that claim and others published in the 2011 report shows that they were based on intelligence reports and documents given to the IAEA by Israel in 2008-09. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei referred   to a series of documents provided by Israel in his 2012 memoirs.

Iran also agreed to respond in detail to allegations that Iran had sought to   integrate a nuclear weapon into the reentry vehicle of the Shahab-3 missile, and that it had developed high explosives as a “detonator” for a nuclear weapon.

Both alleged activities had been depicted or described in documents reported   in the US news media in 2005-06 as having come from a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Those documents, about whose authenticity ElBaradei and other senior IAEA officials   have publicly expressed serious doubts, have now been revealed as having given   to Western intelligence by an anti-regime Iranian terrorist organization.

Former senior German foreign office official Karsten Voigt revealed in an interview  last year for a newly-published book by this writer that senior officials of   the German intelligence agency BND had told him in November 2004 that the BND   had gotten the entire collection of documents from a member of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq   (MEK) who had been one of their sources, and that they did not consider the   source to be reliable.

The MEK, considered by the United States and European states as a terrorist organization, had been used by Saddam Hussein’s regime to support the war against Iran and by Israel to issue intelligence and propaganda that Mossad did not   want attributed to it.

ElBaradei, who retired from the IAEA in November 2009, had declared repeatedly   that sharing the documents was necessary to ensure “due process” in resolving   the issue, but the United States had prevented him from doing so.

In his final statement to the Board of Governors on Sept. 7, 2009 he appealed to “those who provided the information related to the alleged weaponization   studies to share with Iran as much information as possible.”

A former IAEA official, who asked not to be identified, told IPS that the United States had allowed only a very limited number of documents to be shown to Iran in the form of Power Point slides projected on a screen.

A May 2008 IAEA report described a number of documents purported to be from   the Iranian weapons program but said that the IAEA “was not in possession of the documents and was therefore unfortunately unable to make them available to Iran.”

Around 100 pages of documents were given by the United States to the agency to share with Iran, the former official said, but none of the documents described   in the report were among them.

The US policy of denying Iranian access to the documents continued during the   Obama administration, as shown by a US diplomatic cable from Vienna dated Apr.   29, 2009 and released by WikiLeaks. At a P5+1 technical meeting, both US and   IAEA officials were quoted as implying that the objective of the policy was   to press Iran to confess to the activities portrayed in the papers.

US officials said that a failure by Iran to “disclose any past weaponization-related   work” would “suggest Iran wishes to hide and pursue its past work, perhaps to keep a future weapons option”.

IAEA Safeguards Chief Olli Heinonen made it clear that no copies of the relevant   documents charging Iran with weaponization would be provided to Iran and complained   that Iran had continued to claim that the documents were fabricated.

In its report of Nov. 14, 2013, the IAEA said it had received more information – presumably from Israel – that “corroborates the analysis” in its 2011 report.

The past unwillingness of the Obama administration to entertain the possibility   that the documents provided by the MEK were fabricated or to allow Iran the   opportunity to prove that through close analysis of the documents, and the IAEA’s   continued commitment to the weaponization information it has published suggest   that the issue of past claims will be just as contentious as the technical issues   to be negotiated, if not more so.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in   US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism   for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book “Manufactured   Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare”, was published Feb.   14.

Link to the full description of MKO Logo (pdf file)I

Also read:

America needs to rethink the Middle East

Brendan Trainor, News Review, January 31 2014: … In 2012, journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the Pentagon-trained members of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a Marxist cult, in the Nevada desert to wage terror on Iran. The MEK was on the State Department’s terrorist list because it participated in the 1979 revolution. Later, they split with the ayatollahs and believe …

Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult), Zionisst lobby make all-out efforts to derail negotiations

رجوی مجاهدین خلق اسرائیلHossein Mousavian, Tasnim News, February 01 2014: … He underlined that there are others, including certain Arab countries, the Zionist lobby and Israel as well as the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), that make all-out efforts to make sure that the agreement and negotiations will fail. Elsewhere, Mousavian commented on the foreign policy of Iranian President …

Obama pushes Israel to stop assassinations of Iran nuclear scientists – report

Russia Today, March 03 2014: … The report cited two senior Obama administration officials as confirming that Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) is behind the killings, though the officials denied the US played any role in the program. Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, told NBC that Mossad worked through the MEK because …

Maryam Rajavi’s Pal, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) helped fugitive embezzlers

Ileana ros lehtinen Mojahedin Khalq terrorism MKO MEK SaddamBrett Wilkins, Digital Journal, February 06 2014: … Ros-Lehtinen has also publicly voiced her support for Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), a then-State Department-designated  foreign terrorist organization of Iranian dissidents who once assassinated  numerous US officials and carries out attacks inside Iran with US and Israeli  assistance. She also backs the brutal, conservative Honduran regime …

US officials bribed to lobby for Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) terror group

Press TV, February 02 2014: … The former US government officials lobbying on behalf of MKO include former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, former Ambassador to Morocco Marc Ginsberg, General James L. Jones, and former US Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Robert Joseph, reports BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray who attended a briefing sponsored by the group. A US-based Iranian …