I HAD NO IDEA THAT ALMOST EVERY PRESIDENTS FROM EISENHOWER THROUGH OBAMA HAD COURTED IRAN, ENCOURAGED IRAN TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR ENERGY, OFFERED IRAN HELP TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR FUEL FOR "MEDICAL PURPOSES", GIVEN IT NUCLEAR REACTORS.
WHEN THE ARGENTINE PRESIDENT, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, THIS WEEK ACCUSED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OF TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH HER NATION IN 2010 TO PROVIDE LOW-GRADE ENRICHED URANIUM TO IRAN, I HAD TO CHASE THAT ACCUSATION DOWN.
THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL HAD ANGERED ME CONSIDERABLY ONCE KERRY HAD SIGNED ON THE DOTTED LINE.
WHEN I WROTE "THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL ; WHO LOSES?", I WAS PLENTY TICKED-OFF!
DITTO WHEN I WAS WRITING "U.S. EXTENDS DEADLINE FOR IRAN NUKE DEAL, OBAMA WANTS TO LICK MORE BOOT", AND ALL THE OTHER "IS OBAMA CRAZY?" SORT OF BLOGS i DID SINCE THEN...
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE 58 YEARS OF OUR PRESIDENTS' "NEGOTIATIONS" WITH IRAN, BUT IGNORANCE OF FACTS IS NO EXCUSE, SO THIS IS TO CORRECT MY MISCONCEPTION, MY ERROR IN THINKING OBAMA WAS THE FIRST (SINCE REAGAN, OF COURSE) TO SUCK-UP TO IRAN.
NOPE...THEY ALL HAVE, FOR 58 YEARS!
PRESIDENT de KIRCHNER'S REMARKS THAT GARY SAMORE HAD APPEALED TO HER FOR NUCLEAR FUEL FOR IRAN IS WHAT LED ME TO THE FOLLOWING.
THAT IS WHEN I DISCOVERED THIS IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEAL HAD BEEN 58 YEARS IN THE MAKING, WITH EVERY PRESIDENT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH IRAN TO PREVENT, THEY ALL SAID, IRAN FROM BUILDING THE BOMB.
WHAT THE ARGENTINE PRESIDENT SAID IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
GARY SAMORE CONFIRMED TO 'THE BLAZE' THAT HE HAD GONE TO ARGENTINA , JUST AS THEIR PRESIDENT SAID, AND HAD NEGOTIATED FOR ARGENTINA TO PROVIDE NUCLEAR REACTOR FUEL TO IRAN, BUT THE DEAL ENDED IN THE U.S. TURNING INSTEAD TO FRANCE.
IT WAS NO SECRET THEN, NO SECRET WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH WAS MAKING ALMOST IDENTICAL PROPOSALS WITH IRAN AND, LOOKS LIKE, NO BIG DEAL, OR, AT LEAST, NOT IN THE EYES OF ANY ADMINISTRATION ALL THE WAY BACK TO IKE.
ALL NATIONS IN THE "P5+1" WERE NEGOTIATING WITH IRAN.
IT CERTAINLY WAS NO SECRET DURING THE EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION!
THE FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN 5 YEARS AGO, 5 YEARS BEFORE THIS LATEST "REVELATION" BY ARGENTINA'S PRESIDENT, SO WHY ARE REPUBLICANS AND A LOT OF DEMOCRATS SCREAMING FOUL NOW, AFTER 58 YEARS OF SUCH WHEELING AND DEALING BY ALL OUR PRESIDENTS?
SURELY THEY KNEW LONG AGO WHAT I JUST FOUND OUT.
BUT... HOW DID I NOT KNOW THIS?
IT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR DECADES!
"Iran's efforts to develop nuclear energy trace to 1957, in connection with a push from the Eisenhower administration to increase its military, economic, and civilian assistance to Iran. On March 5 of that year, the two countries announced a "proposed agreement for cooperation in research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy" under the auspices of Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program.
The deal was intended to open doors for U.S. investment in Iran's civilian nuclear industries, such as healthcare and medicine.
The plan also called for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to lease Iran up to 13.2 pounds of low-enriched uranium (LEU) for research purposes.
Despite the early and sustained flow of nuclear technology to Tehran, Western governmental support for Iran's nuclear program began to erode ahead of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. In August 1974, a U.S. special national intelligence estimate (PDF) declared that while "Iran's much publicized nuclear power intentions are entirely in the planning stage," the ambitions of the shah could lead Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, especially in the shadow of India's successful nuclear test in May 1974.
This concern led Western governments to withdraw support for Iran's nuclear program. Pressure on France, which in 1973 signed a deal to build two reactors at Darkhovin, and Germany, whose Kraftwerk Union began building a pair of reactors at Bushehr in 1975, led to the cancellation of both projects.
After the Islamic Revolution, the seizure of U.S. hostages, and termination of diplomatic relations in 1979, U.S. opposition to Iran's nuclear efforts increased during the 1980s and 1990s.
Washington blocked nuclear deals between Iran and Argentina, China, and Russia.
[BUT, BEHIND CLOSED AND LOCKED DOORS, WE SAW WHAT THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION DID.]
Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in Columbia University's Journal of International Affairs in 2007 that Washington's shift away from supporting Iran's nuclear energy program left Tehran with little choice but to be discreet in its nuclear activities (PDF).
"To avoid the [U.S.-led] restrictions and impediments," Zarif writes, "Iran refrained for disclosing the details of its programs."
MORE SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS, GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH OBAMA'S
First Diplomatic Efforts
The first effort to reach a diplomatic solution was in 2003 when Britain, France and Germany offered Iran incentives to stop their nuclear program. It is an indication of how concerned the international community is as the prospect of a nuclear Iran that it was Europeans countries, not Israel or the United States, which took the first steps to try to stop the Iranians. Those talks resulted in no agreement; in fact, Iranian officials boasted they continued their research while they were going on.
Iran agreed in a meeting in Tehran with French, German, and British ambassadors on November 14, 2004, to immediately suspend its nuclear programs in exchange for European guarantees that it will not face the prospect of UN Security Council sanctions as long as their agreement holds.
The Bush administration was dissatisfied and said Tehran needed to convince the world it is not a danger (Washington Post, November 15, 2004 ).
Shortly after the Iranian-European agreement, the National Council of Resistance said Iran had bought blueprints for a nuclear bomb and obtained weapons-grade uranium on the black market. The group also charged that Iran was still secretly enriching uranium at an undisclosed Defense Ministry site in Tehran (New York Times, November 18, 2004 ).
Secretary of State Colin Powell also said the United States had intelligence indicating Iran was trying to fit ballistic missiles to carry nuclear weapons, which he intimated would only make sense if Iran was also developing or planning to develop a nuclear capability.
"There is no doubt in my mind - and it's fairly straightforward from what we've been saying for years - that they have been interested in a nuclear weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able to deliver, not just something that sits there," Powell said (Washington Post, November 18, 2004).
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani claimed a "great victory" over the U.S. at the end of November 2004 after the UN said it would not punish Iran's nuclear activities with sanctions.
Rohani said Iran would never give up its right to nuclear power and stressed during talks with European countries that Iran's freeze on uranium enrichment was only temporary (BBC News, November 30, 2004).
President Bush said on November 30, "The Iranians agreed to suspend but not terminate their nuclear weapons program. Our position is that they ought to terminate their nuclear weapons program" (Reuters, November 30, 2004).
Setback in Negotiations
In February 2005, Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Iran will never scrap its nuclear program, and talks with the Europeans are aimed at protecting the country's nuclear achievements, not negotiating an end to them.
This view was reiterated in March by Rohani, who said, the country would never permanently cease enriching uranium, and warned that if the United States went to the United Nations Security Council to seek sanctions against Iran, "the security and stability of the region would become a problem."
In May 2005, Iran confirmed that it had converted 37 tons of uranium into gas, its first acknowledgment of advances made in the production process for enriched uranium. This meant Tehran could start enriching uranium quickly if negotiations with the Europeans over the future of its nuclear program failed (AP, May 9, 2005).
On July 27, Iran's departing president, Mohammad Khatami, said, regardless of Europe's position, "we will definitely resume work in Isfahan," the site of a uranium processing plant. On August 1, Iran said Iranian technicians would break UN seals on the Isfahan nuclear plant, allowing uranium processing to resume. Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment, which was to remain suspended (Jerusalem Post, August 1, 2005).
In late August 2005, European powers called off talks with Iran about its nuclear program scheduled for August 31.
French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said talks on a formal European proposal made earlier this month would not go ahead because Iran had resumed certain nuclear work in breach of a promise to freeze it while talks lasted (Reuters, August 24, 2005).
In early November 2005, Iran rejected a call by European ministers for it to heed a resolution of the IAEA calling for a renewed freeze on all activities related to uranium enrichment (Jerusalem Post, November 6, 2005).
Iran began converting a new batch of uranium at the Isfahan facility, a move seen as provocative after rejecting international pleas to suspend such work (Washington Post, November 17, 2005 ).
The one remaining diplomatic option to avoid pursuing sanctions against Iran failed on March 12, 2006, when Iran rejected an offer from Russia to enrich uranium on its behalf. Negotiations on the proposal were widely viewed as merely a tactical strategy Tehran was using to continue its program while staving off referral to the UN.
Iran's Foreign Minister subsequently rejected the principle of a European package that would require Teheran to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for support to a civilian nuclear program.
In May 2006, the United States said it would join multilateral talks with Iran if Tehran suspended enrichment.
The P5+1 – the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, Russia, France, Britain & the United States) and Germany – offered the Iranians a package of incentives, but Iran rejected the offer three months later.
Incentivizing Iranian Compliance
In May 2008, the P5+1 offered Iran yet another package of incentives to stop their nuclear program. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responded that Iran would not give up its "rights." despite Western pressure. "Threatening the Iranian nation will not make it retreat," he told a rally (Reuters, May 5, 2008).
A month later, in June 2008, the P5+1 offered Iran technical and commercial incentives to suspend uranium enrichment.
A few weeks later, the powers held talks in Geneva, attended for the first time by a senior U.S. official, aimed at reaching an agreement with Iran and forestalling further sanctions.
A senior Iranian official, however, ruled out any freeze in uranium enrichment (Reuters, July 20, 2008).
Five days later, the head of Iran's nuclear agency, Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, announced Iran would no longer cooperate with IAEA experts investigating the country's clandestine nuclear weapons program (Washington Post, July 24, 2008).
Shortly thereafter, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had doubled the number of centrifuges operating a year earlier at its uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, evidence of the progress Iran had made toward developing a nuclear weapon (Washington Post, July 26, 2008)
OBAMA TAKES OVER
In May 2009, Ahmadinejad rejected a Western proposal for it to "freeze" its nuclear program in return for no new sanctions and ruled out any talks with major powers on the issue (Reuters, May 25, 2009 ).
The Obama Administration offered to allow Iran to receive uranium enriched to nearly 20 percent to fuel a medical research reactor if it agreed to send its stockpile of uranium outside the country. Iran rejected the offer.
In 2012, the P5+1 made yet another offer to provide fuel for a research reactor, in addition to agreeing to supply spare parts for civilian aircraft and foregoing additional sanctions. Iran was asked again to give up its stockpile of uranium and to stop its enrichment activities.
Iran again refused and continues to steadily advance toward the completion of the nuclear fuel cycle and the capability to build a bomb.
AND THEN THE P5+1 MADE THEIR LITTLE DEAL AND HERE WE ARE WAITING TO SEE WHO CREATES NUCLEAR WINTER FOR ALL OF US.
58 YEARS OF SWEET-TALKING, "INCENTIVES" AND THOSE ARMS FROM REAGAN... 58 YEARS!
TANGLED WEBS, MY FRIENDS, TANGLED WEBS.
I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
Why did people suspect Iran?
Two years before the AMIA bombing, the Islamic Jihad Organisation had claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29.
The organisation is under the umbrella of Hizbollah, which receives weapons and funding from Iran.
And in the world of intelligence there has been little question that Iran was behind both attacks.
At the time, Tehran was furious over Buenos Aires' decision to cease all nuclear cooperation with Iran in 1992 for fear that Iran's nuclear programme was not limited to peaceful purposes. In 1994, Argentina terminated its nuclear cooperation.
Iran was also carrying out a programme of targeted assassinations up until the late 1990s, according to Christopher Dickey, writing in The Daily Beast.
He said that between 1987 and 1993, according to a French government memo published in a very detailed study called Le Hizbollah Global, some 18 opponents of the Tehran regime were murdered in Europe.
The CIA estimated that between 1989 and 1996 the Hizbollah network carried out 200 serious attacks, costing hundreds of lives.
However, Iran has always strongly denied being behind the attacks.
And some US officials have publicly questioned whether there was evidence for Iranian involvement.
~WHAT IRAN HAS BEEN FURIOUS ABOUT SINCE IT HAPPENED...U.S. DEPOSED AN ELECTED IRANIAN PRESIDENT.
Bryne, Malcolm (18 August 2013). "CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup"
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).
Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to change the terms of the company's access to Iranian petroleum reserves. Upon the refusal of the AIOC to co-operate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize the assets of the company and expel their representatives from the country.
The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."