Isn't that first editorial from March 11, 2003?

Posted by Woody Bombay | September 5, 2007 1:20 PM

Also, "tens," not "tends". I know it's easy to make mistakes. I'll also point out that Glen Greenwald at Salon has a fuller takedown of the Post's screamin' hypocrisy on the matter.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 5, 2007 1:32 PM

Wow, this post wasn't re-read, was it? Not even a title.

Posted by Reality Man | September 5, 2007 1:33 PM

Imagine ElBaradei being emboldened by having been right. Anyone can do that.

It takes a real man to be emboldened by being wrong -- over and over again.

What a dick. (Hiatt I mean.)

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 5, 2007 1:34 PM

i-Phone blogging: maybe not quite ready for prime time.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 5, 2007 1:35 PM

I know the Post has fallen since the heady days of Bernstein but don't tell me they really declared Saddam a nuclear armed threat on March 11, 2007.

Posted by aleks | September 5, 2007 1:43 PM

And remember, The Washington Post is the bulwark of the "liberal media."

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 1:53 PM

Matt - The war also had the perverse consequence of speeding Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Whoops, Matt! You deviate from the official Lefty line...that right now there is no evidence Iran wants nuclear weapons. The approved line is that Iran is only interested in nuclear power because they will eventually run out of oil and gas, and weapons are the furthest things from their thoughts because the Ayatollah considers them "Un-Islamic". And if a Lefty cannot trust an Ayatollah, who can they trust???

Posted by Chris Ford | September 5, 2007 2:09 PM

Since Chris Ford is so used to obeying an official line, it should be no surprise that he reads one into others. A world where one does not think at the command of others is evidently beyond his comprehension.

Smarter monkeys, please.

Posted by sunsin | September 5, 2007 2:24 PM

>>that right now there is no evidence Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Wait, I thought invading Iraq and poking our fingers in everyone's eyes and showing the world what a tough guy we are was supposed to cower countries like Iran into a pants-pissing frenzy? But you now tout the opposite effect it had -- like in the DPRK and Iran and so forth. And that's why we have to invade Iran.

Does it ever get tiring twisting yourself in pretzels like this?

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 2:36 PM

Is this the best the left has got? Baradei was right about procurement from Niger, his agency was wrong about Iran, North Korea and in 1991 Iraq. But inside the credulosphere, everything this dangerous man does must be right. Iran makes no effort to hide the fact that they are expanding their centrifuge cascades. Ahmadinejad announced that there were now 3,000 such centrifuges spinning. Regardless of whether you think these are for building A bombs (and you'd be a fool to think otherwise), this is a blatant violation of Iran's prior agreements with the IAEA and the EU3. Baradei has proposed to ignore this rather enormous problem of a member state of the IAEA enriching uranium in clear violation of its prior agreements, and switched the topic to Iran's past violations and failures to disclose historical information about its nuclear program. That's astoundingly douchey of the director general and leads plenty of observers like myself to question whether this guy is working for the international community or the Iranians.

Posted by Eli Lake | September 5, 2007 6:26 PM

Iran is in compliance with the NNPT.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 5, 2007 6:37 PM

"Regardless of whether you think these are for building A bombs (and you'd be a fool to think otherwise), this is a blatant violation of Iran's prior agreements with the IAEA and the EU3."

Completely false on all counts.

Iran was never required by the NPT to reveal its construction of enrichment cascades until such time as radioactive material was to be introduced into them.

Iran is not and has never been in violation of the NPT or any of its provisions.

The IAEA's sole complaint about Iran is that it has not been completely forthcoming about minor matters such as documents provided to it by the A. Q. Khan organization, or an installation which supposedly was connected to the Iranian military which was subsequently destroyed.

For the last several YEARS, at least, and probably for the entire time their nuclear energy program has been in existence, Iran has done NOTHING in violation of the NPT - nothing whatsoever.

In fact, Iran for several years went BEYOND the basic requirements of the NPT and acted as though the Additional Protocol were in force, even though its legislation did not agree to that imposition.

The IAEA, under pressure from the US and EU, violated ITS OWN regulations and referred the outstanding issues to the UN. The first time, the UN referred it BACK to the IAEA. Then, again under pressure from the US or EU - note, without ANY evidence provided by EITHER body of ANY actual violations of the NPT - the UN took up the case and imposed some minor sanctions.

Yet, the right wingnuts continue to spew this nonsense about an "Iranian nuclear weapons program". There is ZERO evidence that one exists.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 5, 2007 6:49 PM

Richard Steven Hack,

Reading your comment it occurs to me that the netleft's decision to proclaim the community's basis in reality actually discloses deep seated empirical insecurities. Whatever are you talking about? What you have written is insipid nonsense. Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities while the IAEA made unannounced inspections of its various nuclear facilities, an agreement it violated. Also it is a violation of the NPT to have an enrichment facility and then not report it to the IAEA. Are you under the reality based impression that Iran had just finished construction on Natanz in 2003 when it fessed up to it. Come on. Finally how does 2,000 to 3,000 spinning centrifuges count as zero evidence of a nuclear program? Oh, I get it, you believe Ali Larijani when he says they are just looking for alternative energy. It's not like they are the second leading exporter of petroleum or anything. But you're probably right, the Iranians are guilty of being smeared by the neoconservatives who hold Bush's brain in a vat and AEI and tell him what to say through the dental fillings in the animatronic robot that we all think is really President Bush.

Posted by Eli Lake | September 5, 2007 7:37 PM

"Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities while the IAEA made unannounced inspections of its various nuclear facilities, an agreement it violated."

Wrong. Iran operated under the Additional Protocol for at least a year or more, even though it was not ratified by their legislature and therefore was not legally binding. They abandoned it when it did them no good. If I remember correctly, they subsequently agreed to more intrusive inspections of their nuclear facilities.

In any event, ALL their known facilities ARE under IAEA inspection and NO violations of the NPT have been discovered by the IAEA inspections.

"Also it is a violation of the NPT to have an enrichment facility and then not report it to the IAEA."

Wrong again. The Iranians were not required to report their cascades until such time as radioactive material was to be introduced to them. I think it might actually be something like ninety days in advance or whatever. Which the Iranians did.

3,000 operating centrifuges is a nuclear ENERGY program, not a nuclear WEAPONS program. Especially when these cascades are only enriching to 5%, not the much higher percentage required for a nuclear weapon.

As for their need for nuclear energy, read any of the studies done to date. Everyone agrees that if Iran is going to be able to supply energy to their population within the next couple decades without using up all their oil production internally - and thus foregoing the revenue from said oil production sold internationally - they need nuclear energy.

This is not in question by anyone except right wing nuts like yourself.

Try to get SOME knowledge of what's going on before posting "insipid nonsense" which also happens to be completely incorrect on all counts.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 5, 2007 11:58 PM

I'm having trouble posting a rebuttal since The Atlantic's servers are run by the same competent people who spell check Matt's blog posts...

Otherwise known as "internal server error"...

Lake, try to get a clue. Nothing you've said is true. Try to reread my post and comprehend the facts.

1) The Iranians have violated no provisions of the NPT.

2) They were not REQUIRED to declare their enrichment cascades until a certain amount of time before radioactive materials were introduced to those cascades.

Wikipedia explains:

"According to arrangements in force at the time for implementation of Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA,[22] Iran was not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into that facility. At the time, Iran was not even required to inform the IAEA of the existence of the facility. This 'six months' clause was standard for implementation of all IAEA safeguards agreements until 1992, when the Board of Governors decided that facilities should be reported during the planning phase, even before construction began. Iran was the last country to accept that decision, and only did so February 26, 2003, after the IAEA investigation began.[23]."

On October 21, 2003, in Tehran, the Iranian government and EU-3 Foreign Ministers issued a statement[24] in which Iran agreed to co-operate with the IAEA, to sign and implement an Additional Protocol as a voluntary, confidence-building measure, and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities during the course of the negotiations. The EU-3 in return explicitly agreed to recognise Iran's nuclear rights and to discuss ways Iran could provide "satisfactory assurances" regarding its nuclear power programme, after which Iran would gain easier access to modern technology. Iran signed an Additional Protocol on December 18, 2003, and agreed to act as if the protocol were in force, making the required reports to the IAEA and allowing the required access by IAEA inspectors, pending Iran's ratification of the Additional Protocol.

The IAEA reported November 10, 2003,[25] that "it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored." Iran was obligated to inform the IAEA of its importation of uranium from China and subsequent use of that material in uranium conversion and enrichment activities. It was also obligated to report to the IAEA experiments with the separation of plutonium. A comprehensive list of Iran's specific "breaches" of its IAEA safeguards agreement, which the IAEA described as part of a "pattern of concealment," can be found in the November 15, 2004 report of the IAEA on Iran's nuclear programme.[26] Iran attributes is failure to report certain acquisitions and activities on US obstructionism, which reportedly included pressuring the IAEA to cease providing technical assistance to Iran's uranium conversion program in 1983.[27]

[Note: Such pressure is ITSELF against the NPT Charter which specifies that all nuclear energy capable nations are obligated to assist non-nuclear energy nations in furthering the acquisition of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.]

On the question of whether Iran had a hidden nuclear weapons program, the IAEA reported in November 2003 that it found "no evidence" that the previously undeclared activities were related to a nuclear weapons program, but also that it was unable to conclude that Iran's nuclear programme was exclusively peaceful. The IAEA remains unable to draw such a conclusion. Iran has argued that this puts Iran in the same category as many other states for which the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear activities, particularly since the IAEA certified in Jan 31, 2006 that "Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency, and to act as if the Additional Protocol is in force, including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations."[28] However, the IAEA continues to report that Iran has failed to provide information to resolve specific questions, including documents on casting uranium metal into hemispheres and requested information on its P1 and P2 centrifuge programs and its plutonium separation experiments. Iran states that the information requested exceeds the boundaries of the existing safeguards agreement. Since terminating its second agreement to suspend its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities under the Paris Agreement, Iran has steadily reduced its co-operation with the IAEA to only the strict requirements of the existing safeguards agreement, suspending the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and reversing its decision to provide early design information on new facilities.

The IAEA Board of Governors eventually concluded that Iran's safeguards "breaches" and "failures" constituted "non-compliance" with its Safeguards Agreement[29] even though the IAEA had certified that there was no diversion of fissile material to military use, the basis for a referral to the UN Security Counsel as specified in Article 19 of Iran's safeguards agreement."

In other words, as I said, the IAEA ITSELF violated the safeguards agreement by referring the matter to the UN.

Further;

"Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, on November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary and temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program (enrichment is not a violation of the NPT) and the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol, after pressure from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany acting on behalf of the European Union (EU) (known in this context as the EU-3). The measure was said at the time to be a voluntary, confidence-building measure, to continue for some reasonable period of time (six months being mentioned as a reference) as negotiations with the EU-3 continued. On November 24, Iran sought to amend the terms of its agreement with the EU to exclude a handful of the equipment from this deal for research work. This request was dropped four days later.

In early August 2005, Iran removed seals on its uranium enrichment equipment in Isfahan[14], which UK officials termed a "breach of the Paris Agreement"[15] though a case can be made that the EU violated the terms of the Paris Agreement by demanding that Iran abandon nuclear enrichment [16]. Several days later, the EU-3 offered Iran a package in return for permanent cessation of enrichment. Reportedly, it included benefits in the political, trade and nuclear fields, as well as long-term supplies of nuclear materials and assurances of non-aggression by the EU (and not the US),[17]. Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization rejected the offer, terming it "very insulting and humiliating"[18] and other independent analysts characterized the EU offer as an "empty box"."

Further:

"The Iranian government has repeatedly made compromise offers to place strict limits on its nuclear program beyond what the the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Additional Protocol legally require of Iran, in order to ensure that the program cannot be secretly diverted to the manufacture of weapons.[40] These offers include operating Iran's nuclear program as an international consortium, with the full participation of foreign governments. This offer by the Iranians matched a proposed solution put forth by an IAEA expert committee that was investigating the risk that civilian nuclear technologies could be used to make bombs.[41] Iran has also offered to renounce plutonium extraction technology, thus ensuring that its heavy water reactor at Arak cannot be used to make bombs either[42]. More recently, the Iranians have reportedly also offered to operate uranium centrifuges that automatically self-destruct if they are used to enrich uranium beyond what is required for civilian purposes.[43] None of the Iranian offers have been acknowledged by the US or EU, and the US continues to insist that Iran should not have any nuclear technology or know-how whatsoever, on the grounds that the knowledge could one day be used to make bombs."

As for Iran's requirements for nuclear energy to support its internal energy needs beyond the next couple of decades, this is accepted fact by everyone except right wingnuts like you.

Try to get a clue before posting "insipid nonsense" which also happens to be wrong on every count.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 6, 2007 12:14 AM

Sprry for the double post, the Atlantic's servers were running so slow that when I stopped the upload and refreshed the page, my first post did not appear, so I posted a second version.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 6, 2007 12:16 AM

I can't remember whose line this is, but it's not bad:

"The Washington Post editorial page - the Pravda of the Republican Party"

Posted by chet | September 6, 2007 2:21 AM

Frightwingers like Chris Ford just can't understand that some of us think for ourselves. They just believe what they are told to believe.

Posted by merlallen | September 6, 2007 2:59 AM