121 ElBaradei says Israel's nukes are #1 threat; factional struggle in IAEA

ElBaradei says Israel's nukes are #1 threat; factional struggle in IAEA

(1) 56% of American Jews want US to attack Iran - AJC poll
(2) GOP Senators: US, Not Israel, Should Attack Iran 'If Necessary'
(3) IAEA head ElBaradei says nuclear Israel is number one threat to Mideast
(4) IAEA head counters focus on Iran: says Israel's nukes the most dangerous threat
(5) Fierce struggle between two departments of the IAEA
(6) US public skeptical - and hawkish - on Iran
(7) Western media steps up pressure on China over Iran
(8) Kevin MacDonald and Polanski - Eric Walberg reply to Shamir
(9) Pakistan army anger over $1.5bn US aid deal

(1) 56% of American Jews want US to attack Iran - AJC poll

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date:  08.10.2009 06:25 PM

Haaretz (Israel)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1117995.html

Last update - 18:07 01/10/2009 

Poll: 56% of American Jews think U.S. should strike Iran

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent

One day ahead of talks in Geneva between Iran and six major powers - the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany - on Tehran's controversial nuclear program, a national poll finds that 56 percent of American Jews support a U.S. military strike against Iran.

The annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, commissioned by the American Jewish Committee, revealed a 14 percent rise in the number of U.S. Jews in support of such a military strike, whose aim would be to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 36 percent of those polled - self-described adult Jews ? were against such an attack.

Asked whether Israel should attack Iran, 66 percent of those polled said they would support such a move.

At this time, 49 percent of those polled said that they support the policy of U.S. President Barack Obama toward Iran. Obama has expressed desire to resolve the standoff with Iran with diplomatic measures, recently adding that should the diplomacy fail, steps would have to be taken. 35% of those polled said they oppose Obama's policy.

Despite the general liberal stance of U.S. Jews, 58 percent of those polled said that they believed that within the framework of a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians, Israel should not compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction. 75 percent also said that they agreed with the statement "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel." Only 19 percent said that they disagree with the above statement.

The poll also revealed that 51 percent of those polled oppose Obama's call on Israel to freeze all settlement construction (as opposed to 41 percent in favor.) However, 52 percent said that Israel must dismantle some of the West Bank settlements under a peace agreement, 8 percent said all the settlements must be dismantled, and 37 percent said that none should be dismantled.

70 percent of those polled said that they would characterize relations between Israel and the United States as somewhat positive (only 11 percent said they though they were very positive while 2 percent characterized them as negative.)

The question regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state split the American Jewish community almost down the middle, with 49 percent saying they were in favor, and 41 percent against.

(2) GOP Senators: US, Not Israel, Should Attack Iran 'If Necessary'

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date:  08.10.2009 06:25 PM

Raw Story
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/attack-iran-before-israel/

Two senior Republican senators say the United States, and not Israel, should attack Iran if military action becomes "necessary." They also say a simple strike at the country's nuclear capability wouldn't be enough -- the US would have to launch an "all-or-nothing" war against Iran with the aim of crippling the country's military capabilities. "I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and they're not aligned now. It's too much pressure to put on Israel," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

(3) IAEA head ElBaradei says nuclear Israel is number one threat to Mideast

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date:  08.10.2009 06:25 PM

Xinhua (China)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/04/content_12181647.htm

ElBaradei says nuclear Israel number one threat to Mideast: report

www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-04 22:44:00

 TEHRAN, Oct. 4 (Xinhua) -- Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported.

 At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

 "Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

 Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear capabilities, although it refuses to confirm or deny the allegation.

 "This (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel's) power plants ... and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen," said ElBaradei.

 ElBaradei arrived in Iran Saturday for talks with Iranian officials over Tehran's nuclear program.

 Leaders of the United States, France and Britain have condemned Iran's alleged deception to the international community involving covert activities in its new underground nuclear site.

 Last month, Iran confirmed that it is building a new nuclear fuel enrichment plant near its northwestern city of Qom. In reaction, the IAEA asked Tehran to provide detailed information and access to the new nuclear facility as soon as possible.

 On Sunday, ElBaradei said the UN nuclear watchdog would inspect Iran's new uranium plant near Qom on Oct. 25.

(4) IAEA head counters focus on Iran: says Israel's nukes the most dangerous threat

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date:  08.10.2009 06:25 PM

Israel Today (Israel)

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=19702

Tuesday, October 06, 2009   Israel Today Staff

IAEA head tries to take focus off Iran by calling out Israeli nukes

The outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, declared during a press conference in Iran on Monday that Israel's alleged nuclear arms program is the most dangerous threat to regional stability.

ElBaradei emphatically reiterated that his agency has no concrete proof that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, and insisted that Tehran was being very cooperative and that all misunderstandings would be resolved via diplomacy.

Israel, on the other hand, said ElBaradei, has refused for decades to let international inspectors enter its nuclear facilities. Though the Jewish state has never threatened to destroy any of its neighbors, or even to use nuclear weapons at all, ElBaradei was adamant that Israel's secrecy regarding its nuclear capabilities is the most destabilizing factor in the Middle East.

(5) Fierce struggle between two departments of the IAEA

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ08Ak05.html

Oct 8, 2009

Leaked Iran paper exposes IAEA rift

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Excerpts of the internal draft report by the staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published online last week show that the report's claims about Iranian work on a nuclear weapon is based almost entirely on intelligence documents which have provoked a serious conflict within the agency.

Contrary to sensational stories by the Associated Press and The New York Times, the excerpts on the website of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reveal that the IAEA's Safeguards Department, which wrote the report, only has suspicions - not real evidence - that Iran has been working on nuclear weapons in recent years.

The newly published excerpts make it clear, moreover, that the so-called "Alleged Studies" documents brought to the attention of the agency by the United States five years ago are central to its assertion that Iran had such a program in 2002-03.

Whether those documents are genuine or were fabricated has been the subject of a fierce struggle behind the scenes for many months between two departments of the IAEA.

Some IAEA officials began calling for a clear statement by the agency that it could not affirm the documents' authenticity after the agency obtained hard evidence in early 2008 that a key document in the collection had been fraudulently altered, as previously reported by this writer.

As journalist Mark Hibbs reported last week in Nucleonics Week, opposition to relying on the intelligence documents has come not only from outgoing IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei but from the Department of External Relations and Policy Coordination.

Since September 2008, however, the Safeguards Department, headed by Olli Heinonen, has been pressing for publication of its draft report as an annex to a regular agency report on Iran.

Heinonen leaked the draft to Western governments last summer, and in September it was leaked to the Associated Press and ISIS. That has generated sensational headlines suggesting that Iran can already build a nuclear bomb.

The draft report says the agency "assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device". But other passages indicate the authors regard such knowledge only as a possibility, based on suspicions rather than concrete evidence.

It says the "necessary information was most likely obtained from external sources and probably modified by Iran". But it cites only the 15-page "uranium metal document" given by the Abdul Qadeer Khan network to Iran when it purchased centrifuge designs in 1987.

"Based on the information in the document," it says, "it is possible that Iran has knowledge regarding the contents of a nuclear package."

The IAEA "suspects" that the 15-page document was part of "larger package that Iran may have obtained but which has not yet come to the agency's attention", according to the leaked excerpts.

But that document only outlines procedural requirements for casting uranium into hemispheres, not the technical specifications, as the IAEA report of November 18, 2005, noted. No evidence has ever surfaced to challenge the Iranian explanation that Khan's agents threw in the document after a deal had been reached on centrifuges in an effort to interest Iran in buying the technology for casting uranium.

The IAEA affirmed that it has found no evidence that Iran ever acquired such technology.

The only external "nuclear package" ever reported to have been provided to Iran is a set of flawed technical designs for a "high-voltage block" for a Russian-designed nuclear weapon, which was slipped under the door of the Iranian mission in Vienna by a Russian scientist working for CIA's Operation Merlin in February 2000.

Another far-reaching claim in the draft report is that the IAEA "has information, known as the Alleged Studies, that the Ministry of Defense of Iran has conducted and may still be conducting a comprehensive program aimed at the development of a nuclear payload to be delivered using the Shahab 3 missile system".

It does not explain how the "Alleged Studies", which are documents on work done in 2002 and 2003, could have any bearing on whether Iran is now conducting work on nuclear weapons.

Using the same language found in published IAEA reports, the draft suggests that the Alleged Studies intelligence documents represent credible evidence. "The information, which has been obtained from multiple sources, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent," it says.

But that characterization of the intelligence first shown to the IAEA by the United States in 2005 has been contested by sceptics in the agency. A senior IAEA official familiar with the documents suggested in an interview with Inter Press Service (IPS) last month that the claim of "multiple sources" may be misleading.

Given the existence of "intelligence sharing networks", the official said, "one can't rule it out that one organization got the intelligence and shared it with others". That would explain the reference to "multiple sources consistent over time", he said.

The initial US account, according to the official, was that the documents came from the laptop computer of one of the Iranian participants in the alleged nuclear weapons research program. Later, however, that account was "walked back", he said.

"There are holes in the story," said the official.

The introduction by ISIS to the excerpts from the report, evidently based on conversations with the IAEA personnel, confirms that the documents did not come from Iran on a laptop computer, as US officials had claimed in the past. It suggests that the documents were smuggled out of Iran as "electronic media" by the wife of an Iranian who had been recruited by German intelligence and was later arrested.

That new explanation is highly suspect, however, because an intelligence agency would not confirm the identity of one of their agents, even if he were arrested. Asked about the ISIS account, Paul Pillar, who was national intelligence office for the Middle East when the "laptop documents" surfaced, said it "sounds unusual".

The draft report also argues that the information in the documents is credible, because it "refers to known Iranian persons and institutions under both the military and civil apparatuses, as well as to some degree to their confirmed procurement activities".

But the senior IAEA official cast doubt on that claim as well. The names of people working in the relevant Iranian military and civilian organizations are readily obtainable, he observed. "It's not difficult to cook up such a document," the official told IPS.
The draft paper states that the agency "does not believe that Iran has yet achieved the means of integrating a nuclear payload into the Shahab 3 delivery system with any confidence that it would work".

That statement hints at the fact that the re-entry vehicle studies were found to have serious technical problems. The senior IAEA official told IPS that the Sandia National Laboratories, which ran computer simulation analyses of the plan, not only found that none of them would have worked, but had expressed doubt that they were genuine.

The paper makes an indirect reference to a plan for a bench-scale facility for uranium conversion, but does not mention that it had several technical flaws, as acknowledged by Heinonen in a February 2008 briefing for members.

Nor do the draft report's conclusions deal with the fact, confirmed by the senior IAEA official to IPS, that none of the intelligence documents have any security markings, despite the fact they are purported to be part of what presumably would have been Iran's most highly classified program.

(6) US public skeptical - and hawkish - on Iran
Oct 8, 2009

By Jim Lobe

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ08Ak04.html

WASHINGTON - Despite strong support for diplomatic engagement with Iran, most United States citizens believe such efforts will ultimately fail and that Washington should be prepared to use military force to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to a new poll released in the US on Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Sixty-one percent of the 1,500 respondents interviewed by Pew said it was "more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action" than to "avoid military conflict", according to the survey, which was conducted over a five-day period ending on Monday.

At the same time, 63% of respondents - an increase of 9% since last time Pew posed the question, in 2006 - said they approved of Washington negotiating directly with Iran over the future of its nuclear program, as it began doing last Thursday in Geneva where the two countries held their highest-level public talks in 30 years.

But the poll also found great skepticism that either talks or, for that matter, increased economic sanctions, would succeed in dissuading Iran from giving up its uranium-enrichment program which some believe is geared towards developing a nuclear weapon.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said they did not believe direct negotiations would work, while a somewhat smaller 56% doubted that tougher economic sanctions would have the desired effect. ...

(7) Western media steps up pressure on China over Iran

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/irch-o08.shtml

By John Chan
8 October 2009

As US pressure escalates against Iran over its nuclear programs, a distinct anti-China undercurrent has appeared in the American and international media over Beijing’s resistance to backing punitive new sanctions against Tehran in the event of a breakdown in talks.

A number of articles have appeared highlighting China’s substantial investments in and trade with Iran. On September 23, the British-based Financial Times reported that Chinese companies have begun selling petrol to Iran as other exporters including BP and Reliance of India were cutting back. The article offered little in the way of evidence, claiming that state-owned Chinese companies were operating through intermediaries and now accounted for one third of Iran’s gasoline imports.

Just days later President Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy melodramatically revealed news of a "secret" Iranian uranium enrichment plant at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh and threatened a new round of sanctions. Among the measures being discussed is a crippling ban on the sale of refined petroleum products to Iran, which has huge oil reserves but limited refinery capacity.

The New York Times took up the same theme as the Financial Times in an article on September 30 entitled "China’s ties with Iran may snag sanctions". The newspaper noted that China relies on Iran for 15 percent of its imported oil, has committed to $120 billion of energy deals and investment over the past five years, and in return has sold growing volumes of Chinese goods to Iran. "Iran has loaded up on imported Chinese machine tools, factory equipment, locomotives and other heavy goods, building China into one of its largest trading partners," it declared.

The article directly underscored divergent US and Chinese interests in Iran. "The United States has almost no financial ties with Iran, regards its government as a threat to global stability and worries that a rising Tehran could threaten American alliances and energy agreements in the Gulf," it declared. "In contrast, China’s economic links to Tehran are growing rapidly, and it sees Iran not as a threat but as a potential ally. Nor would the Chinese be distressed, the reasoning goes, should a nuclear-armed Iran sap American influence in the region and drain the Pentagon’s resources in more Middle East manoeuvring."

At present, the tone of such articles is still quite mild compared to the vitriol that appeared in late 2002 and early 2003 when France and Germany refused to fall in behind the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. But it does not require a great stretch of the imagination to see in the New York Times’s commentary potential denunciations of Beijing for aiding a rogue state, endangering US troops, and threatening regional and global stability. The aim at this stage is to pressure China, which has backed previous limited UN sanctions, to line up with the US campaign.

The media exposure of China’s widely known economic interests in Iran is just as hypocritical as were Washington’s rhetorical attacks on "Old Europe" and Russia for their oil interests in Iraq. No one is writing about the fact that Japan, not China, is actually the largest importer of Iranian oil or that the European Union is still Iran’s largest trading partner. Nor are Russia’s close connections with Iran, including its nuclear program, the subject of discussion. In return for Obama’s modification of the US missile system and scrapping of bases in Eastern Europe, Russia has strongly hinted that it might be prepared to back tough sanctions against Iran.

No mention is made of the economic motivations of those pushing for confrontation with Iran. Academic Michael Bauer from the University of Munich told Deutsche Welle that historically Germany had been Iran’s most important trade partner, but now confronted a dilemma. Berlin, he explained, "hopes that there’ll be a breakthrough in relations with Iran so that sanctions won’t be an issue any more. And on the other hand, German industry fears that, when sanctions are lifted, they’ll be far behind China and Russia to get out of the starting blocks." ...

(8) Kevin MacDonald and Polanski - Eric Walberg reply to Shamir

From: Eric Walberg <efgh1951@yahoo.com> Cc: editors@theoccidentalobserver.net, jones@culturewars.com, kmacd@csulb.edu
Date: 08.10.2009 05:55 PM
Subject: re Kevin MacDonald and Polanski

> The Poverty of Racialist Thought
> By Israel Shamir

As usual you are thought-provoking, Israel. A few comments:

> Polansky is not condemned by Hollywood
> because he is a Jew, and Jews protect each other.
> They also like Polansky because his films and by
> his actions have helped to undermine the Whites’ morals
> and values.

Hmm. Does your deconstruction of The Fearless Vampire Killers really show it to be a spoof of Judaism? Is Polanski intentionally sending up Judaism or merely spoofing vampire movies? Kevin MacDonald's thesis that Jews protect each other still holds, imho. His vampire spoof pales against his Holocaust tribute The Pianist. Gilad Atzmon and you (and I) argue that Jewish gatekeepers come in all shapes and sizes, and ultimately serve the flock by shepherding left and right, Zionist and anti-Zionist, into safe zones. Polanski is no 'self-hating Jew' as far as I know.

> Perhaps this order had to be upset, for it was
> not good for the lower classes. The Jews used it
> to their advantage, granted; they used the legitimate
> dissatisfaction of the blacks in the South to their
> advantage, too

So Jews do act as a tribe. A most effective one. Whites just aren't as united, most likely because they have been the ruling imperialists until recently (whether in control or as lumpen/ workers identifying with their masters). Surely it's a question of not needing to form a physical/ mental ghetto to maintain control. The KKK in the US south was a product of a ghetto mentality because whites were in the minority and felt threatened.

> Is being a Jew still relevant nowadays?

Yes and no. Yes to the extent that, for instance, Obama's closest advisers are indeed Jewish, plus all the TV networks etc are controlled by Jews. And because the vast majority of Jews are conscious Zionists. And on and on.
No to the extent that we are all (secular) Jews, as Marx argues, with the hegemony of capitalism. So indeed many goys are better Jews that those born of a Yiddish mama.

(9) Pakistan army anger over $1.5bn US aid deal

Pakistan's army has raised "serious concern" over a US aid package worth $1.5 billion a year which it fears will result in Washington being allowed to interfere in government policy.

By Saeed Shah in Islamabad
Published: 6:12PM BST 07 Oct 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/6269330/Pakistan-army-anger-over-1.5bn-US-aid-deal.html

The row pits the Pakistan's powerful armed forces against the fragile civilian government of the Pakistan Peoples Party, which championed the US assistance deal.

The military is about to begin a Western-backed offensive against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Waziristan, the epicentre of Pakistani extremism and an important refuge for Afghan insurgents.

Conditions that come with the Kerry-Lugar Bill, passed by Congress late last month, have caused a political storm in Pakistan, with the military now joining the parliamentary opposition in hostility to the aid package.

The Bill, which was supposed to symbolise US commitment to Pakistan, requires monitoring and certification of Pakistan's action against terrorism. It also requires the country to work to prevent nuclear proliferation and show that the military is not interfering in the political process.

According to critics of the legislation, the conditions imply that Pakistan sponsors terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and they resent the intrusion into affairs of the military.

The army's top brass met on Wednesday to consider the Kerry-Lugar legislation at corp commanders' conference at the military headquarters at Rawalpindi.

A statement issued after the corp commanders meeting said: "Chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, reiterated that Pakistan is a sovereign state and has all the rights to analyse and respond to the threat in accordance with her own national interests.

"The forum expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on National Security."

Separately, there was a heated debate in parliament on the US aid Bill, with opposition political parties united against the contentious clauses.

Marvi Memon, an opposition member of parliament, said: "Everyone wants aid, the problem is the conditions, which are tantamount to holding Pakistan hostage to US designs.

"This is a complete affront to national sovereignty."

Farahnaz Ispahani, a member of parliament for the ruling PPP, said that the Bill was being misconstrued.

"This Bill is an attempt by the American taxpayer to give socio-economic aid to the poorest sections of Pakistani society," said Mrs Ispahani. "It is an act of affirmation of a major democracy for another democracy."

The Kerry-Lugar legislation says Pakistan must prevent "al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, from operation in the territory of Pakistan".

It also demands the "dismantling of bases of operations in parts of the country, naming Quetta and Muridke".

Lashkar-e-Taiba is the Pakistani-based group blamed for the carnage in Mumbai last year, which has its headquarters at Muridke, a town just outside Lahore. Quetta is thought to house Mullah Omar, the founder and leader of the Afghan Taliban, from where he runs the so-called "Quetta shura" or leader council of the Taliban.

Hasan Askari Rizvi, a political analyst, said that the army's public statement was surprising and "it amounts to putting pressure on the government".

With the army and opposition united, he said that, under a "worst-case" scenario, given the wave of anti-Americanism sweeping Pakistan, the government could even fall over this issue.