Miriam, I enjoy reading your articles. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you this one. Although US attacked Iraq with a false intel, US had all the reasons to attack Iraq the first day Saddam kicked out IAEA inspectors out of the country. It was a clear violation of treaty signed after the Gulf War in early 90's. Yes, President Bush's aggressive foreign policy aggrevates many nations but at the same time it sent out a message to the world that anyone opposes the will of free country as US will take the similiar consequences. Yes, US should respect UN's disapproval of attacking Iraq. However, what did UN do to prevent terrorism around the globe? Idealism of UN is awesome but it doesn't function well like communism.

These very forefathers that you are speaking of (though I have the utmost admiration for their beliefs and struggle). There was a 'word' used to describe them for the first time in modern judicial system. Yes, you guessed it right "Terrorists".

Exactly how do you spread democracy?

You befriend:

Saudi Arabia (Kingdom)
Kuwait (Emirate)
UAE (Emirate)
Oman (Sultanate)
Qatar (Emirate)
Pakistan (Dictatorship)
Iraq (Dictatorship) though, we parted ways. How dare he tried to kill my Daddy?

You threat:

Syria (Democratically elected regime)
Palestine (Democracy)
Iran (Democratically elected, though not perfect)

We became the superpower within five years from 1945-1950:

After we destroyed Europe or Europe destroyed itself. We raided those science fiction labs and brain drained the continent.

Just a thought!

Shall we discuss how the US overthrew the very first democratically elected government in the middle east? Clue! 1957

Positive:
To Eric Jette: This post already has an Israeli voice (or two or three pretending they aren't).
So your little piece of "truth" (which will set us all free!!) the "perfection of action" according to you, is a fine Rabbi's sermon, but not the tour de force you think, perhaps.

February 22, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments

=================
To All:

Often I have found that when one presents an assessment of the current Iranian government both in terms of capability and intent, in providing perspective and understanding of the threat to global peace and security the regime in Tehran poses as I have above; One is then assumed to be speaking on behalf of Israel, by those with no clue. With no better way to address the assessment that to question the intent or personal alliegiances of the author, and to mischaracterise the work.

1. I am American.
2. I am Bhuddist
3. I am a Humanitarian
4. I am a life long student of the human condition.
5. I speak for myself, and let others speak for themselves, as I have no need to speak for them.
6. I call things as I see it, after doing the research. (in this case, many years worth)

One is free to accept the assessment given above or not, as they are so inclined. I have no attachment to the opinions of others, only to the hope that concrete solutions may come about as result of international introspection.

I believe the assessment given above has been helpful in that regard.

Regards,

EJ

to observer,13.220 billion I wrote(not 13.22).Thirteenthousandtwohundredtwenty billion dollars means 13.22 trilyon dollars.

Whoever is against America should be nuked. Plain and simple.

Miriam, can I ask you something? Where did you get this "sleeping beauty" thing from? Why is that? Honesty I dint gt your point...and if it is what I imagine...then...I think you got it wrong.

Second: you went on talking on institutions and that you believe in then......well, I understood that you believe in then when it comes to US...Am I wrong? You are Brazilian, why didn't you write about the Brazilian institutions...Do you believe in them too? Or there all the same and generalisations are OK? I wonder that you would be more comfortable talking bout something a little more familiar, let's put it like that...I wonder too that there will be a lot to talk about it!

To be fair, I just would like to point out that there are a number of posters, a couple I guess, that provided away too much material from resolutions and so on to prove that you would not be well prepared. Plain worong...that is not the point here. Well, I learned with my old and wise father that he who has the reason on his side do not need to prove it ....but then again it brings to my mind that in America that evidence matters a lot...Empiricism is the rule of thumb....I am fine with it since it does not lead to blunder decisions, arrogance, and eliminates the discernement of those who make the final decision of LAUNCHING A WAR.

Writing in English is not that simple...we need to understand not only the rationale of the language but the rationale of the people who speaks it, their beliefs and values....that would be my final two cents.

@FATE

What's wrong with America under Bush? You guys should be very happy to have a president like him. The common people around the world love him. Only leftist (a.k.a. liberals, communists, NAZIS, etc.), terrorists and their supporters as well as brainwashed hardheads are not amused. But, who cares?

America is doing great and there's nothing wrong with it. Absolutely nothing.

Sleeping Beauty wrote:
---"Welcome to Planet America With more than 2,500,000 U.S. personnel serving across the planet and military bases spread across each continent, it’s time to face up to the fact that our American democracy has spawned a global empire .The total of America’s military bases in other people’s countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737...---

What is your point? That America spends its own money on other country's defenses? Most of those other countries are democracies that could vote for leaders that would throw us out but that has not happened. We are welcomed and appreciated for the security we brought to Germany during the cold war and Japan, and bring to South Korea today. Comparing America's willingness to fight for other nations to Roman empire occupations is stupid and uninformed. Rome demanded taxes from its occupied lands and used its forces to impose its rule of law. Remember that Christ was executed by Romans in occupied Judea, not any local government that Rome was helping to protect with its own resources. Calling America an empire is like calling Mother Teresa a gang leader. America is not perfect and right now under Bush we are at an all time low, but calling our foreign soldiers willing to die for other peoples an imperial force of occupation is just wrong.

Miriam Leitao: "I believe in institutions. If I didn’t, I would call the U.S. the most dangerous country on earth. ..."

Well, I understand that people who prefer socialism instead of capitalism and dictatorship instead of democracy are talking such nonsense.

Although other posters have already pointed out some very important things in order to put the things in the right frame, here is my piece.

***

Sacrifices of our Founding Fathers

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army,another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed,rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education.

They had security, but they valued liberty more.

Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:

"For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor".

They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot of what happened in the Revolutionary War.

We didn't just fight the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted.....we shouldn't.

So, take a couple of minutes and silently thank these patriots...

***

God bless America!

To Eric Jette: This post already has an Israeli voice (or two or three pretending they aren't).
So your little piece of "truth" (which will set us all free!!) the "perfection of action" according to you, is a fine Rabbi's sermon, but not the tour de force you think, perhaps.

Miriam Leitao,

Now that you've got some facts to work with, courtesy of a fellow who's done his research, let me offer an assessment.

"In greater Freedom"

Anyone looking at a map can see the "bookended" nature of the strategic position Tehran is in at the moment, with two fledgling democracies and thousands of US/coalition troops on its borders.
The reports out of the Pentagon regarding shaped explosive charges originating and shipped from Iran (of Revolutionary Guard origin), are but a manifestation of a coordinated effort between the regime in Tehran, Hizbollah, and al-quaida to ferment civil war in Iraq.
Tehran has been at "war by proxy" with the US since the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit, and it may only be a matter of time before there is no other option left on the table except a military one to resolve the situation.
This prospect may terrify folks more than terrorism itself, but there's only one viable solution to effectively stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan permanently. It is quite simply, "regime change" in Tehran.

How an alternate "regime change" solution manifests is fully depedent on whether the international community has the guts to support a rather extensive opposition community inside and outside Iran as they have begged and pleaded with the international community to do for some time. Given that the other options; to do nothing or go to war ;are not quite as viable in solving the problem, nor the first options to contemplate, given the situation needs resolution and that war is the last option.

To this point, the only leader of free nations who's had that alternate vision of an Iran existing within the community of nations ..."in greater freedom", and had the guts to voice the option is President GW Bush...."..and to the Iranian people I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." The man presented possibilities to people in so doing, as a president will on occasion.

The IRI is fast pushing the free world to another alternative that could be far worse, if the IRI does produce a nuclear weapon before the people decide their own fate, and remove the threat both to them and the international community.

It took America just about 27 months, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced.

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with, and in all probability now has in its possesion, a handful of nuclear devices smuggled in after being bought on the black market.

I hear a fair amount of talk that the US is just using this as an excuse to promote "regime change". But the reality is if the regime isn't changed soon, the mullahs who are willing to martyr 10 million recruits (as also noted in IRI statements), and is on record of having an agenda of obliterating nations off the map, would certainly be willing to use such a weapon on their own people to make it look for all intents and purposes as if the Israeli's or the US had just attacked them, thereby creating the needed justification for holy war (or un-holy war depending on one's mindset)

That said, I am in full agreement with the President when he said,

"And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda."
(Excerpt from speech-President Discusses Global War on Terror
Capital Hilton Hotel ,Washington, D.C.)

We in America share a concept, united we stand, divided we fall, 9/11 has forced the world to grasp this concept. Ready or not, globalization is at hand, a global response to chaos in the form of potential nuclear terrorism.

If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

At present the US government has still a policy of "behavior change" in effect. The US has made a generous offer to resolve the "nuclear problem" diplomatically in concurrence with other nations and UN resolutions mandating compliance with international norms.

The regime has turned it down, and is apparently unwilling to even talk about becoming a functional member of the family of nations, let alone take the steps necessary to become one.

Therefore one cannot blame the US for the choices the regime makes, nor the results that the consequences will ultimately manifest.

My conclusion is this,... and I hope the Islamic Republic of Iran will consider very carefully what they wish for, because one of the basic flawed premise in modern political mythology is that having nuclear weapons buys national security.

Regardless of flaws in US policy that one may perceive, the risk the Islamic Republic poses to the Iranian people far outweighs by orders of magnitude, the risk the US government poses to them.

Why is that?

Because for the last 60 years since my government dropped 2 atomic bombs to end a war that took over 50 million lives, The US has done everything in its power to make sure not another one gets dropped....by anyone, including us.

At the core, this issue and the global community's solution to it boils down to a basic issue of "Responsibility to Protect" as outlined and ratified by member states at the 2005 UN summit.

Noteworthy as well in this matter is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been condemned some 50 times by that international forum for its abysmal human rights record.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 requires Iraq 's neighbors to respect the sovereignty of Iraq and also encourages its neighbors to do what they can to assist in the development and reconstruction of the country. And that those countries that are found to undertake actions that do not respect Iraq 's sovereignty or that contribute to undermining stability in Iraq risk reaction by the international community. A "mountain of evidence" exists in this regard.
In addition, the Islamic Republic of Iran remains in standing violation of multiple UN resolutions regarding terrorism, including the financing and support of, in material ways throughout the region and beyond via proxy groups, including providing safe haven to members of Al Quaida.

What I see from their words today (the mullahs and their supporters) is threats shrouded in niceties; The essential intellectual hypocrisy of arrogant righteousness in claiming to have any understanding of absolute truth as manifest by a political sect of Islam wholly incapable of having an open and honest dialogue within its belief structure, let alone a "dialogue among civilizations"; and a pattern of criminal and sociopathic behavior that has been elevated to an "art form" by the leadership of Iran since the '79 revolution. As noted in the following video archive which I hope all will choose to view:

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/video.jpg

My answer to Ahmadinejad's wrong thinking-ness is that raising a family, growing old and watching your kids thrive and prosper in peace, and knowing the joy of this over time, having contributed to its manifestation , having created one's reality , a new generation, ....is the ultimate artistic endeavor.

Global media outlets also have a "Responsibility to protect" humanity. To do this by presenting the case for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. presenting the truth itself, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. With : Logic over emotionalism. Truth over viewpoint. Ethics over all.
For the truth shall set Mankind free of ethical infants.

This is the challenge I lay before you, to create a better world.

Best Regards,

Eric Jette

Miriam Leitao,

If you are going to opine, it is helpful to your credibility to get your facts in order. Starting with this:

UN 1441

The Security Council,

-Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
-Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
-Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
-Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
-Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
-Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
-Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
-Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
-Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
-Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
-Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
-Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
-Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
-Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
-Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
-Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,
-Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
-Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
-1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
-2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
-3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
-4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
-5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
-6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
-7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
-8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
-9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
-10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
-11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
-12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
-13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
-14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

===========

The subject topic is Iran, so best get your facts strait on this as well.

----------

Security Council
5612th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN FOR FAILURE TO HALT
URANIUM ENRICHMENT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1737 (2006)
Measures Will Be Lifted if Iran Suspends Suspect Activities;
Report Due from Atomic Energy Agency on Compliance within 60 Days
Determined to give effect to its unmet 31 July demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, the Security Council today imposed sanctions on that country, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear materiel and equipment and freezing the financial assets of persons or entities supporting its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems.
Unanimously adopting resolution 1737 (2006) under Article 41 of the Charter’s Chapter VII, the Council decided that Iran should, without further delay, suspend the following proliferation sensitive nuclear activities: all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development; and work on all heavy-water related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. The halt to those activities would be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Specifically, the Council decided that all States should prevent the supply, sale or transfer, for the use by or benefit of Iran, of related equipment and technology, if the State determined that such items would contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy-water related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. The Council decided it would terminate the measures if Iran fully complied with its obligations, or adopt additional ones and possible further decisions if the country did not.
The Council requested a report within 60 days from the Director General of IAEA on whether Iran had established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in the resolution, as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all steps required by the IAEA Board, to the Board of Governors and the Council for its consideration. The Council affirmed that it would review Iran’s actions in light of that report and suspend implementation of measures, if and for so long as Iran suspended all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.
The Council also established a new committee, comprised of all Council members, to monitor implementation of the present text and designate further individuals or entities to which the sanctions should apply. The committee would be tasked with taking appropriate action on alleged violations of the sanctions, consider requests for exemptions, designate possible additional individuals and entities subjected to the measures, and report at least every 90 days to the Council on the implementation of the resolution. All States were to report to the Committee within 60 days on the steps they had taken with a view to implementing the relevant provisions of the resolution.
The representative of the United States stressed that adoption of the resolution sent Iran an unambiguous message that there were serious repercussions for its continuing disregard and defiance of the Security Council. He hoped the resolution would convince Iran that the best way to ensure its security and end its isolation was to end its nuclear weapons programme and take the steps outlined in today’s text, and he looked forward to Iran’s unconditional and immediate reply. The text provided an important basis for action, and it was not open to interpretation, compelling all Member States to deny Iran the equipment, technology, technical assistance and financial assistance that could contribute to nuclear sensitive activities. In the face of non-compliance by Iran, the United States would not hesitate to return to the Council for further action.
The United Kingdom’s representative recalled that, following adoption of the first such Council resolution on 31 July mandating IAEA-required suspension by Iran of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, that country had “simply thumbed its nose at the Security Council and defied international law”. If Iran did not change course, the Council had committed itself, in today’s text, to further measures. Iran, therefore, faced a choice, and the vote today had indicated the gravity of that choice. He hoped Iran would heed the Council’s decision and return to negotiations to resolve the nuclear dossier. That, in turn, would open the way for the European Union and Iran to open a new and wider relationship to their mutual benefit, and to the benefit of international peace and security.
The main thrust of the resolution, the representative of the Russian Federation said, was support of the Council for the activities of IAEA on the issue at hand. The long and difficult consultations had focused on confirming the measures that Iran needed to take to ensure confidence in its nuclear programme, as formulated by the IAEA Board. It was crucial that the restrictions introduced by the Council applied to the areas of concern of the Agency. Cooperation with Iran in areas not restricted by the resolution should not be subjected to its terms. Some of the wording of the draft could have been made clearer. He was convinced that a solution could be found exclusively in the political and diplomatic spheres. In that context, the measures should be taken in line with Article 41 of the Charter, and not permit the use of force.
China’s representative said that sanctions were not the end, but a means to urge Iran to return to negotiations. The sanctions adopted today were limited and reversible, and targeted at proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. There were also explicit provisions indicating that, if Iran suspended its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and complied with the relevant Council texts and IAEA requirements, the Council would suspend and even terminate the sanctions. Today’s text had welcomed the commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States to a negotiated solution, and had encouraged Iran to engage with them, leading to the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and establishment of international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Those terms of the text could spur a new round of diplomatic efforts.
Iran’s representative told the Council that it was a sad day for the non-proliferation regime. The Council was imposing sanctions on a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, unlike Israel, had never attacked or threatened to use force against any United Nations member. Also unlike Israel, Iran had categorically rejected development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on ideological and strategic grounds, and it was prepared to provide guarantees that it would never withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It had placed all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, had fully implemented the Additional Protocol for more than two years, and had stated its readiness to resume its implementation. Iran had also allowed more than 2,000 “person days of IAEA scrutiny” of all of its related -- and even unrelated -- facilities, resulting in reported statements by the Agency on the absence of any evidence of diversion.
He said that bringing Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme to the Council by a few permanent members, particularly the United States, was not aimed at a solution, but at compelling Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology. Suspension was not a solution, but a temporary stop-gap measure to allow time to find a real solution. Moreover, such a suspension had been in place for two years, as verified by IAEA. He was here today because his country had not accepted that “unlawful demand”. At the same time, his country was prepared to go to any length to allay the so-called proliferation concerns. Iran was told it needed to build confidence, but confidence could only be built through respect for and non-discriminatory application of international law and international treaties. Such treaties could not be the subject of self-serving reinterpretations, even if imposed through resolutions.
Other explanations of position were made by the representatives of Qatar, France, Japan, United Republic of Tanzania and Argentina.
The meeting began at 11:25 a.m. and adjourned at 12:41 p.m.
Background
The Security Council met today to act on a draft resolution (document S/2006/1010) sponsored by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, which reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006,
“Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,
“Reiterating its serious concern over the many reports of the IAEA Director General and resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors related to Iran’s nuclear programme, reported to it by the IAEA Director General, including IAEA Board resolution GOV/2006/14,
“Reiterating its serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,
“Reiterating its serious concern over the IAEA Director General’s report of 28 April 2006 (GOV/2006/27) and its findings, including that, after more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, and that the IAEA is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,
“Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the IAEA Director General’s reports of 8 June 2006 (GOV/2006/38), 31 August 2006 (GOV/2006/53) and 14 November 2006 (GOV/2006/64), Iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required of it by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s refusal to take these steps,
“Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear non-proliferation elsewhere, and welcoming the continuing commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative to seek a negotiated solution,
“Determined to give effect to its decisions by adopting appropriate measures to persuade Iran to comply with resolution 1696 (2006) and with the requirements of the IAEA, and also to constrain Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programmes, until such time as the Security Council determines that the objectives of this resolution have been met,
“Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear programme and, in this context, by Iran’s continuing failure to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors and to comply with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
“Acting under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
“1. Affirms that Iran shall without further delay take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions;
“2. Decides, in this context, that Iran shall without further delay suspend the following proliferation sensitive nuclear activities:
(a) all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA; and
(b) work on all heavy water-related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, also to be verified by the IAEA;
“3. Decides that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to, or for the use in or benefit of, Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran’s enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, namely:
(a) those set out in sections B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, B.6 and B.7 of INFCIRC/254/Rev.8/Part 1 in document S/2006/814;
(b) those set out in sections A.1 and B.1 of INFCIRC/254/Rev.8/Part 1 in document S/2006/814, except the supply, sale or transfer of:
(i) equipment covered by B.1 when such equipment is for light water reactors;
(ii) low-enriched uranium covered by A.1.2 when it is incorporated in assembled nuclear fuel elements for such reactors;
(c) those set out in document S/2006/815, except the supply, sale or transfer of items covered by 19.A.3 of Category II;
(d) any additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, determined as necessary by the Security Council or the Committee established by paragraph 18 below (herein “the Committee”), which could contribute to enrichment-related, or reprocessing, or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
“4. Decides that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to, or for the use in or benefit of, Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of the following items, materials, equipment, goods and technology:
(a) those set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part2 of document S/2006/814 if the State determines that they would contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;
(b) any other items not listed in documents S/2006/814 or S/2006/815 if the State determines that they would contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
(c) any further items if the State determines that they would contribute to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or identified as outstanding;
“5. Decides that, for the supply, sale or transfer of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology covered by documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/815 the export of which to Iran is not prohibited by subparagraphs 3 (b), 3 (c) or 4 (a) above, States shall ensure that:
(a) the requirements, as appropriate, of the Guidelines as set out in documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/985 have been met; and
(b) they have obtained and are in a position to exercise effectively a right to verify the end-use and end-use location of any supplied item; and
(c) they notify the Committee within ten days of the supply, sale or transfer; and
(d) in the case of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology contained in document S/2006/814, they also notify the IAEA within ten days of the supply, sale or transfer;
“6. Decides that all States shall also take the necessary measures to prevent the provision to Iran of any technical assistance or training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or other services, and the transfer of financial resources or services, related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture or use of the prohibited items, materials, equipment, goods and technology specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 above;
“7. Decides that Iran shall not export any of the items in documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/815 and that all Member States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran;
“8. Decides that Iran shall provide such access and cooperation as the IAEA requests to be able to verify the suspension outlined in paragraph 2 and to resolve all outstanding issues, as identified in IAEA reports, and calls upon Iran to ratify promptly the Additional Protocol;
“9. Decides that the measures imposed by paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above shall not apply where the Committee determines in advance and on a case-by-case basis that such supply, sale, transfer or provision of such items or assistance would clearly not contribute to the development of Iran’s technologies in support of its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and of development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including where such items or assistance are for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes, provided that:
(a) contracts for delivery of such items or assistance include appropriate end-user guarantees; and
(b) Iran has committed not to use such items in proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
“10. Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance regarding the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals who are engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, and decides in this regard that all States shall notify the Committee of the entry into or transit through their territories of the persons designated in the Annex to this resolution (herein “the Annex”), as well as of additional persons designated by the Security Council or the Committee as being engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology specified by and under the measures in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, except where such travel is for activities directly related to the items in subparagraphs 3 (b) (i) and (ii) above;
“11. Underlines that nothing in the above paragraph requires a State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory, and that all States shall, in the implementation of the above paragraph, take into account humanitarian considerations as well as the necessity to meet the objectives of this resolution, including where Article XV of the IAEA Statute is engaged;
“12. Decides that all States shall freeze the funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories at the date of adoption of this resolution or at any time thereafter, that are owned or controlled by the persons or entities designated in the Annex, as well as those of additional persons or entities designated by the Security Council or by the Committee as being engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, including through illicit means, and that the measures in this paragraph shall cease to apply in respect of such persons or entities if, and at such time as, the Security Council or the Committee removes them from the Annex, and decides further that all States shall ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any persons or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of these persons and entities;
“13. Decides that the measures imposed by paragraph 12 above do not apply to funds, other financial assets or economic resources that have been determined by relevant States:
(a) to be necessary for basic expenses, including payment for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges or exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services, or fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds, other financial assets and economic resources, after notification by the relevant States to the Committee of the intention to authorize, where appropriate, access to such funds, other financial assets or economic resources and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within five working days of such notification;
(b) to be necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that such determination has been notified by the relevant States to the Committee and has been approved by the Committee;
(c) to be the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgement, in which case the funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgement provided that the lien or judgement was entered into prior to the date of the present resolution, is not for the benefit of a person or entity designated pursuant to paragraphs 10 and 12 above, and has been notified by the relevant States to the Committee;
(d) to be necessary for activities directly related to the items specified in subparagraphs 3 (b) (i) and (ii) and have been notified by the relevant States to the Committee;
“14. Decides that States may permit the addition to the accounts frozen pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 above of interests or other earnings due on those accounts or payments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to the provisions of this resolution, provided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to these provisions and are frozen;
“15. Decides that the measures in paragraph 12 above shall not prevent a designated person or entity from making payment due under a contract entered into prior to the listing of such a person or entity, provided that the relevant States have determined that:
(a) the contract is not related to any of the prohibited items, materials, equipment, goods, technologies, assistance, training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or services referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above;
(b) the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity designated pursuant to paragraph 12 above;
and after notification by the relevant States to the Committee of the intention to make or receive such payments or to authorize, where appropriate, the unfreezing of funds, other financial assets or economic resources for this purpose, 10 working days prior to such authorization;
“16. Decides that technical cooperation provided to Iran by the IAEA or under its auspices shall only be for food, agricultural, medical, safety or other humanitarian purposes, or where it is necessary for projects directly related to the items specified in subparagraphs 3 (b) (i) and (ii) above, but that no such technical cooperation shall be provided that relates to the proliferation sensitive nuclear activities set out in paragraph 2 above;
“17. Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and prevent specialized teaching or training of Iranian nationals, within their territories or by their nationals, of disciplines which would contribute to Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
“18. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council consisting of all the members of the Council, to undertake the following tasks:
(a) to seek from all States, in particular those in the region and those producing the items, materials, equipment, goods and technology referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, information regarding the actions taken by them to implement effectively the measures imposed by paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of this resolution and whatever further information it may consider useful in this regard;
(b) to seek from the secretariat of the IAEA information regarding the actions taken by the IAEA to implement effectively the measures imposed by paragraph 17 of this resolution and whatever further information it may consider useful in this regard;
(c) to examine and take appropriate action on information regarding alleged violations of measures imposed by paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of this resolution;
(d) to consider and decide upon requests for exemptions set out in paragraphs 9, 13 and 15 above;
(e) to determine as may be necessary additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology to be specified for the purpose of paragraph 3 above;
(f) to designate as may be necessary additional individuals and entities subject to the measures imposed by paragraphs 10 and 12 above;
(g) to promulgate guidelines as may be necessary to facilitate the implementation of the measures imposed by this resolution and include in such guidelines a requirement on States to provide information where possible as to why any individuals and/or entities meet the criteria set out in paragraphs 10 and 12 and any relevant identifying information;
(h) to report at least every 90 days to the Security Council on its work and on the implementation of this resolution, with its observations and recommendations, in particular on ways to strengthen the effectiveness of the measures imposed by paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 above;
“19. Decides that all States shall report to the Committee within 60 days of the adoption of this resolution on the steps they have taken with a view to implementing effectively paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 17 above;
“20. Expresses the conviction that the suspension set out in paragraph 2 above as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA Board of Governors, would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guarantees Iran’s nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes, underlines the willingness of the international community to work positively for such a solution, encourages Iran, in conforming to the above provisions, to re-engage with the international community and with the IAEA, and stresses that such engagement will be beneficial to Iran;
“21. Welcomes the commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative, to a negotiated solution to this issue and encourages Iran to engage with their June 2006 proposals (S/2006/521), which were endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1696 (2006), for a long-term comprehensive agreement which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme;
“22. Reiterates its determination to reinforce the authority of the IAEA, strongly supports the role of the IAEA Board of Governors, commends and encourages the Director General of the IAEA and its secretariat for their ongoing professional and impartial efforts to resolve all remaining outstanding issues in Iran within the framework of the IAEA, underlines the necessity of the IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme;
“23. Requests within 60 days a report from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in this resolution, as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board and with the other provisions of this resolution, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration;
“24. Affirms that it shall review Iran’s actions in the light of the report referred to in paragraph 23 above, to be submitted within 60 days, and:
(a) that it shall suspend the implementation of measures if and for so long as Iran suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, as verified by the IAEA, to allow for negotiations;
(b) that it shall terminate the measures specified in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12 of this resolution as soon as it determines that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and met the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors, as confirmed by the IAEA Board;
(c) that it shall, in the event that the report in paragraph 23 above shows that Iran has not complied with this resolution, adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary;
“25. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

Resolution Annex
A. Entities involved in the nuclear programme
1. Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran
2. Mesbah Energy Company (provider for A40 research reactor — Arak)
3. Kala-Electric (aka Kalaye Electric) (provider for PFEP — Natanz)
4. Pars Trash Company (involved in centrifuge programme, identified in IAEA reports)
5. Farayand Technique (involved in centrifuge programme, identified in IAEA reports)
6. Defence Industries Organisation (overarching MODAFL-controlled entity, some of whose subordinates have been involved in the centrifuge programme making components, and in the missile programme)
7. 7th of Tir (subordinate of DIO, widely recognized as being directly involved in the nuclear programme)
B. Entities involved in the ballistic missile programme
1. Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG) (subordinate entity of AIO)
2. Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group (SBIG) (subordinate entity of AIO)
3. Fajr Industrial Group (formerly Instrumentation Factory Plant, subordinate entity of AIO)
C. Persons involved in the nuclear programme
1. Mohammad Qannadi, AEOI Vice President for Research & Development
2. Behman Asgarpour, Operational Manager ( Arak)
3. Dawood Agha-Jani, Head of the PFEP (Natanz)
4. Ehsan Monajemi, Construction Project Manager, Natanz
5. Jafar Mohammadi, Technical Adviser to the AEOI (in charge of managing the production of valves for centrifuges)
6. Ali Hajinia Leilabadi, Director General of Mesbah Energy Company
7. Lt Gen Mohammad Mehdi Nejad Nouri, Rector of Malek Ashtar University of Defence Technology (chemistry dept, affiliated to MODALF, has conducted experiments on beryllium)
D. Persons involved in the ballistic missile programme
1. Gen Hosein Salimi, Commander of the Air Force, IRGC (Pasdaran)
2. Ahmad Vahid Dastjerdi, Head of the AIO
3. Reza-Gholi Esmaeli, Head of Trade & International Affairs Dept, AIO
4. Bahmanyar Morteza Bahmanyar, Head of Finance & Budget Dept, AIO
E. Persons involved in both the nuclear and ballistic missile programmes
1. Maj Gen Yahya Rahim Safavi, Commander, IRGC (Pasdaran)
Statements
VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said that his delegation would vote in favour of the text, because the text -- a product of long and difficult consultations -- focused on the confirmation of the measures that Iran needed to take to ensure confidence in its nuclear programme, as formulated by the IAEA Board. In other words, the main thrust of the resolution was support by the Council of the IAEA activities in that area. It was crucial that restrictions introduced by the Council applied to the areas that caused the concern of the Agency. Cooperation with Iran in the areas that were not restricted by the resolution should not be subject to its terms.
He went on to say that some of the wording of the draft could have been made clearer. He was convinced that solutions could be found exclusively in the political and diplomatic spheres. In that context, it was important that the measures would be taken in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter and not permit the use of force. In strengthening the global non-proliferation regime, it was necessary to seek solid regional and international safety and security. His Government saw the resolution as a serious message to be sent to Iran to ensure a more active and open cooperation with IAEA to resolve the remaining concerns. The parameters for cooperation had been set forth in the resolutions of the IAEA Board and supported by the Security Council.
Today’s resolution clearly reaffirmed that, if Iran suspended all activities related to enrichment or reprocessing of uranium, the sanctions would be suspended, he said. That would allow the international community to launch a negotiations process. Such proposals had been transmitted to Iran’s Government in the name of the six countries involved and remained valid today. He hoped Iran would perceive the context of the resolution and take measures to resolve the issue.
ALEJANDRO WOLFF ( United States) said the Security Council today was sending Iran an unambiguous message that there were serious repercussions for its continuing disregard and defiance of the Council. Nearly four months ago, the Council had sent a serious message to Iran to take the steps required of it by IAEA. That step had been taken to convince Iran to relent from its confrontational posture and to consider the offer by the United States, France, Germany, Russian Federation and China on 1 June, and avoid Security Council action. Regrettably, Iran had continued to defy the international community by its continued enrichment activities and its refusal to comply with resolution 1696 (2006) and the request of IAEA.
He said that today’s Chapter VII text required Iran to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and to stop work on all heavy-water-related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, all to be verified by IAEA, which would report back to the Council within 60 days. Iran was also required to provide IAEA with the access it needed to resolve outstanding issues, as well as to ratify the IAEA Additional Protocol. To persuade Iran to take those steps, today’s resolution had taken the necessary measures, deciding that there would be no trade with Iran in three key nuclear-related areas. The text also banned any technical or financial assistance by any countries, and it had States freeze assets of any persons or entities supporting Iran in its nuclear proliferation sensitive activities.
That was the second such resolution that reflected the gravity of the situation and the determination of the Security Council, he said. Hopefully, the resolution would convince Iran that the best way to ensure its security and end its isolation was to end its nuclear weapons programme and take the steps outlined in today’s text. The Council would review its actions, based on IAEA’s report, and adopt further measures if Iran did not comply fully with its obligations. He looked forward to Iran’s unconditional and immediate reply to the resolution, and he hoped the Iranian leadership would come to understand that the pursuit of nuclear capability made it less, and not more, secure.
He said that the resolution provided an important basis for action, compelling all Member States to deny Iran the equipment, technology, technical assistance and financial assistance that could contribute to nuclear sensitive activities. The text was clear and not open to interpretation, and the Council would insist on absolute compliance. However, the adoption was only a first step. The Council would work with the Sanctions Committee and, if necessary, it would not hesitate to return to that body for further action if Iran failed to take the necessary steps to comply.
President of the Council, NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER ( Qatar), speaking in his national capacity, said that his country was keen on compliance by all states with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). That was a matter of principle to which Qatar attached great importance. For that reason, his country had never ceased to appeal for the Middle East to become a region free of weapons of mass destruction. It had also called on Iran to submit to the inspection regime, and on all States with stockpiles of nuclear weapons to dismantle them. Qatar supported all resolutions calling for such measures. Commitment to the NPT within the framework of IAEA might encourage safe uses of nuclear technologies. It would also build confidence and promote understanding among nations.
Emphasizing the essential role of IAEA, he said that Iran had the right to undertake research of nuclear technologies and use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, he continued. However, today’s resolution sought to bar the country’s access to the elements that could be used for destructive purposes. Today, the Council was to adopt a resolution on a difficult question. While his delegation had no doubt about the sincerity of Iranian intentions, the international community needed guarantees of nuclear safety from IAEA. He appealed to Iran to urgently respond to the text. He knew it was difficult, but the horizons for diplomatic cooperation were wide. Among other things, the resolution also confirmed that the measures to be enforced would be suspended, should Iran comply with its provisions. That would create an opportunity for negotiations.
In conclusion, he expressed hope that Iran could address the resolution with the necessary rationality. He also hoped that the text would contribute to limiting nuclear proliferation in the region, in particular in view of the fact that Israel had recently made statements on its nuclear deterrence capability. His delegation would vote in favour of the draft.
The draft resolution was then adopted unanimously as resolution 1737 (2006).
Speaking after the vote, EMYR JONES PARRY (United Kingdom) said that, on 31 July, the Council had adopted resolution 1696 (2006), which had mandated the IAEA-required suspension by Iran of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. The Council had called on Iran without further delay to take the steps required by the Agency and to implement all necessary transparency measures and requests. That resolution had also set a deadline for such compliance by 31 August. Iran’s response had been to step up those activities and to offer to export such technologies. In November, IAEA had reported insufficient transparency and an inability to remove uncertainties about Iran’s nuclear programme.
He said Iran had “simply thumbed its nose at the Security Council and defied international law”. Bearing in mind the Council’s primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and taking with utmost seriousness the threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the Council had unequivocally expressed its intent in resolution 1696 (2006) to adopt measures under Article 41 in the event of Iranian non-compliance, and that was what it had done today. In so doing, it had reiterated and expanded its mandated suspension of Iran’s proliferation sensitive activities and established an embargo aimed at preventing Iran from exporting and importing materials and equipment to sustain proliferation sensitive activities. The Council had also introduced a set of measures intended to persuade Iran to stop pursuing other activities of concern. It had underlined the seriousness of the situation, including the international community’s lack of confidence about the direction of Iran’s policies.
Importantly, however, the door was not closed for Iran, he said. The United Kingdom, France and Germany, with the European Union High Representative, Javier Solana, had led negotiations with Iran and remained committed to seeking a diplomatically negotiated solution based on cooperation. A new relationship between Europe and Iran was “on the table”, but that must be with an Iran that eschewed nuclear ambition. Suspension would permit negotiations to resume and intensify, this time with Russian and United States engagement. For that reason, in the pursuit of a negotiated agreement, it was vital that all States implemented the resolution as fully as possibly, including by adopting the necessary legislation to pave the way for robust and necessary implementation. Without that, no one could expect the Council to meet its objective.
He said that, if Iran did not change course, the Council had committed itself in today’s text to further measures. Iran, therefore, faced a choice. The vote today had indicated the gravity of that choice. He hoped Iran would heed the Council’s decision and return to negotiations to resolve the nuclear dossier. That, in turn, would open the way for the European Union and Iran to open a new and wider relationship to their mutual benefit and to the benefit of international peace and security.
JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIÈRE ( France) welcomed unanimous adoption of the resolution today. The text -- developed on the basis of a draft submitted by France, Germany and United Kingdom -- confirmed the mandatory nature of the suspension of proliferation sensitive activities in the nuclear field. The Council also sought to prevent the supply, sale or transfer of nuclear materials, equipment and goods to and from Iran, and to ensure that Iran would not avail itself of outside contributions to its sensitive programmes. It also addressed financial services surrounding sensitive transactions, as well as the travel of those with operational involvement. Such travel would be restricted, and those individuals’ assets frozen. Those measures would apply immediately to some 20 persons and entities listed in the text. The draft also reaffirmed the powers of IAEA.
The aim of the measures adopted today was to invite Iran to conform to its non-proliferation commitments and the guidelines of the IAEA, he continued. Iran should conform to the resolution and stop developing technology capable of supporting nuclear and missile programmes. It was important that the measures were reversible. Should Iran suspend all its sensitive activities and conform to relevant resolutions of the Council and IAEA, the measures just adopted would be suspended. Should the country persist, however, other measures would be taken under Article 41. The resolution sent a clear message to Iran, which was now facing a strategic choice: cooperation with the international community or growing isolation. He hoped Teheran would choose dialogue.
KENZO OSHIMA ( Japan) said that he regretted that the Council had had to act again only five months later. Its members had conducted intensive discussions on the Iranian nuclear issue over the course of the year, in order to seek a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the problem. Those efforts had failed to produce positive results. In defiance of resolution 1696 (2006), Iran had refused to take the steps required of it. On the contrary, the situation had worsened, with Iran’s expansion of its reprocessing and related activities. Japan attached great importance to the non-proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, along with their delivery means; that was a clear and present global challenge posing a grave threat. It must be dealt with firmly and with determination. In order to counter such threats, actual or potential, the international community must act appropriately, timely and resolutely, wherever those threats occurred, be it in the Middle East, Asia or elsewhere.
He said that Iran’s failure to comply with the requirements of IAEA and the Council must be dealt with in a principled manner. At the same time, the country had a right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, just as any other country, and in exercising that right, he hoped that Iran fully complied with its IAEA obligations. Because of the importance of non-proliferation, and taking into account the measured approach in the resolution, he had supported it. The text had not spelled the end of negotiations with Iran. Rather, it had kept the door open for talks and had explicitly mentioned the reversibility of the measures taken today. Japan enjoyed the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy to the fullest, and his country had traditionally enjoyed good relations with Iran. In adopting the resolution today, he appealed to Iran to seek the resolution of the nuclear issue at the earliest possible time, through full diplomatic talks.
WANG GUANGYA ( China) said that, since the beginning of the year, Iran’s nuclear issue had attracted more and more attention. The Iranian side had not yet responded positively to the requirement of IAEA and the Council. After issuing a presidential statement in March and adopting resolution 1696 in July, the Council had adopted another resolution today, aiming to safeguard the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism, reinforcing IAEA’s authority and promoting diplomatic efforts to seek a peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear issue. His delegation had voted in favour of the draft. Sanctions were not the end, but a means to urge Iran to return to negotiations. Sanction measures adopted this time were limited and reversible, targeted at proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems. There were also explicit provisions indicating that, if Iran suspended its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, complied with the relevant resolutions of the Council and met IAEA requirements, the Council would suspend and even terminate the sanctions.
The Council could not handle Iran’s nuclear issue single-handedly, he continued. IAEA remained the main mechanism for dealing with that issue. Dialogue and negotiations was the only and fundamental way out. The solution required all-around diplomatic efforts and diplomatic efforts outside the Council, in particular, should be strengthened. The resolution welcomed the commitment of China, France, Germany, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States to a negotiated solution to the issue and encouraged Iran to engage with the six countries’ proposals for a long-term comprehensive agreement, which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and establishment of international confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. All that would be conducive to reactivating the new round of diplomatic efforts.
China had all along supported safeguarding the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism and opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons, he continued. It did not wish to see turbulence in the Middle East. It was in favour of a peaceful solution through political and diplomatic efforts and negotiations. Under the current circumstances, he called upon all the parties concerned to adopt a highly responsible and constructive attitude, remain calm, practice restraint and refrain from any steps that would harm diplomatic efforts and lead to the deterioration of the situation. At the same time, he hoped that the parties would seek to resume negotiations in a creative and forward-looking manner, sparing no efforts for enhancing the diplomatic efforts for a comprehensive and peaceful solution. China was ready to continue to make joint efforts with all the parties concerned and contribute to maintaining international and regional peace and stability, safeguarding and consolidating the international non-proliferation mechanism and resolving Iran’s nuclear issue through political and diplomatic efforts.
AUGUSTINE P. MAHIGA (United Republic of Tanzania) said he was opposed to the development of nuclear weapons by anybody, including his traditional friend, Iran. He strongly supported the NPT and the non-proliferation regime it established under IAEA, to which his country belonged. He expected all its members, including Iran, to uphold its treaty obligations. His country firmly believed in the right of the people of Iran to civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The current resolution did not seek to constrain that right. It should be made clear, however, that any such programme had to be subjected to the IAEA verification and safeguards regime.
He said his country had all along hoped that the concerned parties would resolve the highly sensitive Iranian nuclear issue peacefully. He had placed faith in the parties to return to negotiations under mutually acceptable terms. Unfortunately, progress had been painfully slow, owing to the uncompromising positions of both sides. Despite the efforts to overcome the differences, the situation had remained deadlocked, mainly over the issue of enrichment and reprocessing activities as a condition for further talks. He believed the negotiators could overcome that issue, that the impasse was reversible, as long as good political will prevailed. Today’s resolution could be seen as a signal and a call to revisit the issue at the earliest possible opportunity.
CESAR MAYORAL ( Argentina) said that he had voted in favour of the draft, because it reaffirmed an inalienable right of all States parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop and research the production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, without any discrimination. At the same time, his Government trusted that the Government of Iran would continue its nuclear programme exclusively for peaceful purposes, following the parameters established by IAEA and provided for in relevant Council resolutions. He also expressed satisfaction that the resolution had been adopted unanimously under Article 41 of the Charter. Under the resolution, there was no recourse to the use of force. The main objective should be to maintain international peace and security, and Argentina called on all parties to resume dialogue to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.
JAVAD ZARIF ( Iran) said that today was a sad day for the non-proliferation regime. Only a few days ago, Israel’s Prime Minister had boasted about the country’s nuclear weapons, but, instead of raising an eyebrow -- let alone addressing that serious threat to international peace and security and the non-proliferation regime -- the Security Council was imposing sanctions on a member of the NPT that, unlike Israel, had never attacked nor threatened to use force against any United Nations member. Also unlike Israel, Iran had categorically rejected development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on ideological and strategic grounds, and it was prepared to provide guarantees that it would never withdraw from the NPT. It had placed all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, and it had fully implemented the Additional Protocol for more than two years and stated its readiness to resume its implementation.
He said that Iran had allowed more than 2,000 “person days of IAEA scrutiny” of all of its related -- and even unrelated -- facilities, resulting in reported statements by the Agency on the absence of any evidence of diversion. His country had also voluntarily suspended its lawful enrichment activities for more than two years, as verified by the Agency, in order to build confidence and provide ample opportunity to find a mutually acceptable solution, if that were ever the intention of its negotiating partners. It had presented various far-reaching proposals to ensure permanent non-diversion, and it had consistently called for time-bound and unconditional negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution, a call that had been repeated yesterday by Iran’s Foreign Minister.
The same Governments that had pushed the Council to take “groundless punitive measures” against Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme had systematically prevented it from taking any action to nudge the Israeli regime towards submitting itself to the rules governing the nuclear non-proliferation regime, he said. By so doing, they had provided it with wide latitude, even encouragement, to indulge freely in the clandestine development and unlawful possession of nuclear weapons and public boasting about it, with impunity. The Israeli regime had an unparalleled record of non-compliance with Security Council resolutions -- if that was the criteria today -- and a “long and dark” catalogue of crimes and atrocities, such as occupation, aggression, militarism, State terrorism, crimes against humanity and apartheid. Nuclear weapons in such hands posed a uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security. The reversal of the hypocritical policy of “strategic ambiguity” had removed any excuse, if ever there had been one, for continued inaction by the Council.
To put it into perspective, he said that today’s resolution could only remind the Iranian people of the historic injustices the Council had done to them in the past six decades. It was reminiscent of the attempt made by the Council to punish the Iranian people for their nationalization of their oil industry, described as a threat to peace. It was also a reminder of the Council’s indifference in the face of a military coup, organized by two permanent members, which had restored the dictatorship. It refreshed the memory of the time when the Council did not consider the massive invasion of Iran by the former Iraqi regime as a threat to international peace and security, and refused to even call on the invading army to withdraw from Iranian territory. It also brought back the horrors of the long years when the Council had turned a blind eye to the extensive and brutal use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and soldiers and, by so doing, shouldered responsibility for tens of thousands of Iranians who continued to suffer and perish as a result.
He said that bringing Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme to the Council by a few permanent members, particularly the United States, was not aimed at a solution or negotiations. Their stated objective had always been to use the Council as an instrument of pressure and intimidation to compel Iran to abandon its rights. Reviewing the motivation behind the presentation of the so-called package of incentives given to Iran, he said that the United States and the “EU-3” had never even taken the trouble of studying various Iranian proposals, as those negotiating partners were, from the very beginning, bent on abusing the Council with the threat of sanctions as an instrument to pressure and compel Iran to abandon the exercise of its right under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology. It was now an “open secret” that their objective from the negotiations had never been to find a solution, but to impose and then prolong, perpetuate and suspended Iran’s rights.
Suspension was not a solution, he stressed. At best, it was a temporary stop-gap measure to allow time to find a real solution. Such a suspension had been in place for two years, and IAEA had repeatedly verified in each and every report, from November 2003 to February 2006, that Iran had fully suspended what it had agreed to suspend. So, Iran had a suspension for two years, and on-and-off negotiations for three. Reviewing all of the proposals ignored by the United States and the “EU-3” in the negotiations, he said that what they had wanted, despite what they had told Iran, was -- “and still is” -- that Iran should undertake a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities. He was here today because his country had not accepted that “unlawful demand”. At the same time, his country was prepared to “go to any length to allay their so-called proliferation concerns, in spite of the fact that we all know they are no more than unfounded and self-serving sheer excuses”, he said.
To the point that the sponsors said they did not trust Iran’s “intentions”, he said the problem was that their “intention-o-meter” had a rather abysmal record of chronic malfunction. The former United States Director of Central Intelligence, Robert Gates, had claimed before Congress in 1992 that Iran was trying to acquire a nuclear-weapon capability, and had added that that goal was unlikely to be achieved before the year 2000. Later, in November 1992, a draft national intelligence estimate by the CIA had concluded that Iran was making progress on a nuclear-arms programme and could develop a nuclear weapon by 2000. Now, the same intelligence establishment was saying not before 2015. Accusing Iran of having “the intention” to acquire nuclear weapons had, since the early 1980s, been a tool used to deprive Iran of any nuclear technology, even a light water reactor or fuel for the United States-built research reactor.
He said he wondered which “Iranian intention” or “proliferation concern” had prompted the main proponents of today’s resolution to prevent Iran, over the past 27 years, from buying civilian aircraft or even their spare parts, thereby jeopardizing the lives and safety of Iranian civilians, whom they hypocritically tried to court now, to no avail. He told delegations to read “the dangerous divisive statement by the UK Prime Minister” or the 23 August report by the Intelligence Committee of the United States House of Representatives on Iran’s nuclear programme, if they wanted to understand the intention of the proponents of the resolution.
Iran firmly believed that the days of weapons of mass murder had long passed; that those inhumane instruments of indiscriminate slaughter had not brought internal stability or external security for anyone, and that they would not be able to do so in the future, he said. Unlike some who despised the Non-Proliferation Treaty and international law in general, Iran had a high stake in preserving, fully implementing, strengthening and universalizing the NPT. Today’s decision did exactly the opposite, because it was championed by a non-member of the Treaty, coupled with its main benefactor, which made no secret of its contempt for that and other disarmament instruments. No one had forgotten last year’s World Summit, at which even the word “disarmament” had been struck from the Outcome text by the famous “red pen”. The days of bullying, pressure and intimidation by some nuclear-weapon holders were gone. Iran was told it needed to build confidence, but confidence could only be built through respect for and non-discriminatory application of law. International law and international treaties could not be the subject of arbitrary, fluctuating and self-serving reinterpretations, even if they were imposed through resolutions. Such a precedent was dangerous for everyone.
* *** *

Mr Halozcel. You falsely noted the US GDP as 13.22 billion dollars. According to CIA factbook its 13.22 Trillion US dollars not billion. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis current US GDP is 13,487.2 billion dollars.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2007/pdf/gdp406a.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html

Well said. Clearly and concisely.
Institutions and a steady application of the rule of existing laws (without regard to whether that law is fair, just, even-handed, democratic or not....) is the key to stability.

There ought to be a difference between world politics and diplomacy vs. the contrasting hyped version of some sports event.

Leitao
--how clearly and simply said. And valuable. Thank you.
Shouldn't we be fearful now about America electing,twice,such a fool? How did it happen? How did the Dual Loyalists,the Israel firstneocons so hijack foreign policy that
they got us to war? Remember the world was taking to the streets, many countries. Saddam wasgiven three days to leave...so paniced were the "forces" determined to get us to war that they invaded on the second day. Unready. And to this horrid mess. And Israel's Olmert dashes to the US now to demand we bomb Iran. And Bush starts making bomb noises.
The reins have been dropped on a runnaway team of horses and we'd better get them back and steer
this great nation...once a beacon, or it will be irretrievably lost. How did this happen so suddenly? Did we have some grave fault line we didn't know about? Is democracy so fragile?

"Welcome to Planet America With more than 2,500,000 U.S. personnel serving across the planet and military bases spread across each continent, it’s time to face up to the fact that our American democracy has spawned a global empire .The total of America’s military bases in other people’s countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737. Reflecting massive deployments to Iraq and the pursuit of President Bush’s strategy of preemptive war, the trend line for numbers of overseas bases continues to go up. Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized American facilities spread around the globe in 2005 -- mostly air and naval bases for our bombers and fleets -- almost exactly equals Britain's thirty-six naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in 1898. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD required thirty-seven major bases to police its realm from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. Perhaps the optimum number of major citadels and fortresses for an imperialist aspiring to dominate the world is somewhere between thirty-five and forty. The worldwide total of U.S. military personnel in 2005, including those based domestically, was 1,840,062 supported by an additional 473,306 Defense Department civil service employees and 203,328 local hires. Its overseas bases, according to the Pentagon, contained 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and 16,527 more that it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making the Pentagon easily one of the world's largest landlords."

Sleeping? Beauty?

"We cannot put all the blame on Bush’s shoulders. That would be too easy for America's institutions. Congress approved the war with votes from many democratic legislators. Congress approved skyrocketing war expenditures.

A considerable part of America's press supported Bush’s war, despite the fact reasonable doubt remained about Saddam Hussein’s presumed stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction."

I believe those are extremely important points to make, when discussing American politics under George W. Bush. They are generally left out of that conversation, and for obvious reasons.

Let me illustrate.

Political correctness has it, for instance, that it was Hitler and the Nazis that were responsible for all that was wrong about WWII. Not the Germans. Not the German people. Most Germans, it is said, did not really know what was going on, or if they knew anything was wrong, they always had been against that.

That interpretation, though still most widespread. comes straight out of Fantasy Land. Only the participation of millions of Germans (allies and collaborators) made WWII possible, and during that many years. Therefore, German institutions, the German media, and German folks, allies and collaborators, etc. need all be held responsible... and accountable. Thus, the responsibility of the German people for the horrors perpetrated during WWII cannot be retrospectively ignored by simply blaming Hitler... and the Nazis.

The same applies to the US today. The American people cannot convincingly avoid taking responsibility, individually and collectively, for the "Abuse of Power" that went on (and is still going on) under George W. Bush. For American citizens simply to put all the blame on George W. Bush and on the so-called "Bush Administration" will not do. It is simply not true that "We did not know what was and what went wrong; and if we did, well, we were always against it."

For what took place under Bush to have been only possible, millions and millions of Americans need have been directly involved and responsible. It is therefore to be expected History will put on record that not only did the American Institutions, the American Forces and more particularly the American Media fail the American people, during the GWB years, but that the American people failed themselves as well. The current president was not only elected and supported, in his endeavours, by a large majority of Americans. George W. Bush was even reelected(!), and by more than 58 million Americans.

In a democracy, those more than 58 million voters are both responsible and accountable. Not exclusively those they elect. More than that: in light of the lack of any strong opposition to GWB during all those years, even those who were not amongst the 58 million plus pro Bush voters have their responsibility in what the US has become.

May I add that the same would be true for any country, were the same facts to hold true for that country? On matters of principle (responsibility, accountability, etc.), that it be the US or any other country makes no difference one way or the other.

Miriam. Although we can't put ALL the blame on Bush's shoulders because his administration consists of many other co-conspirators. The most important being Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

We can blame the Bush administration, and the American people for electing him, and the media for being obsequious in not strongly opposing him.

Realistically, very little of the blame accrues to the corporate owned media. They only tell the American public what they want to hear. Few want to be told that their government is totally corrupt and outrageously deceptive, there was no profit in that! But maybe NOW.....

When you blame Congress you must keep in mind that, until last November, it was controlled by Republicans. The Democrats have been frustrated for six years in trying to expose this regime. Now they have a chance to do it.

Before you blame politicians you should look at how each individual Congressman voted on the AUMF. For example, John Kerry's vote was qualified by the existence of WMD.

In the standoff prior to the invasion, Saddam Hussein blinked and backed down. He allowed the weapons inspectors to do their jobs; it was Bush who ordered them out of Iraq prior to invading. Remember, the US decided to invade Iraq NOT with UN backing, but rather over UN official disapproval of any such course of action.

The sanctions against Iraq DID work. The proof is that after 10 years, Iraq had no WMDs and no viable program to develop any.

Even if there had been no manipulation of the intelligence, the invasion was unjustified. We should have absolutely solid evidence before doing something as momentous as invading a nation that did not directly attack another or otherwise provoke response. Iraq neither attacked nor presented any actual danger to us or any other country since they were defeated in the first Gulf war.

We should have the best intelligence in the world, and we should only invade on the most urgent actual need. Our debacle in Iraq is not a failure of intelligence; it is a failure of leadership.

Ms. Leitao,

I never agreed with going to war in the first place. I believed that our politicians were too fickel and spineless to finish a war, let alone start one. I believed that it would be just another bad nightmare like Vietnam. And it has been, due to our politicians constantly monitoring the opinion polls, and adjusting their stance accordingly. I remember that after Vietnam they, the politicians tried to blame us the soldiers for losing that war. As time went on they then attributed the cause to everything that you could imagine, except for one thing. Themselves, our politicians. They are now in the process of doing the same thing over again. And I do agree with you, "we can't put all the blame on president Bush". The blame lies with all of us, but mostly with the politicians. And now we are poised on the Brink of another disaster. The Middle East Situation needs our presence in some form or fashion. We can't rely on the UN. They are worthless when dealing with madmen and terrorists. They are better suited to help the Red Cross to provide food and shelter assistance.
Maybe it is time for all americans to wake up from their slumber and to face reality. We are led by a bunch of adults that have the character and morals of juvenile delinquents. For americans who do not accept the propaganda of the left and or the right, it becomes more and more difficult every day to discern what is real.

Another Monday Morning Quarterback

I apologize in advance. I don't have time to dig up all the material again

At the time with the intel that was presented and with Saddam not cooperating with the U.N. inspections bascially giving the middle finger to the world. There was no other option. We tried diplomacy for 12 years and it didn't work.

Of course in retrospect the intelligence was "wrong" However all Saddam had to do was cooperate with the inspections and this Iraq war never would have occured

Currently we have another country Iran who is disobeying UN resolutions by still processing nuclear materials. Iran once again is giving a middle finger to the world.

Going to war with Iran would be extremely foolish in my view. At the same time the UN continues to be a joke by passing resolutions that are never enforced.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/12/f173b20e-b495-402d-abc7-ca34fbdfe718.html

Brazil,population 188 millions with GDP nominal 620 billion dollars.America,population 300 millions with GDP nominal 13.220 billion dollars.Who is sleeping? But,if Emerson,Kaka,Ronaldo and Ronaldinho play better Brazil soccer team may be champion at the next world cup.