Foreign Ministry: Iranians main victims of Us-backed terrorists
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman reacted to the latest annual terrorism report released by the US Department of State, saying that despite US claims, Iranians have been the main victims of acts of terrorism carried out by terrorists directly supported by Washington.
Refuting brazen claims leveled against Iran in the US “Country Reports on Terrorism 2019,” Seyyed Abbas Mousavi said on Thursday, “The Islamic Republic of Iran totally rejects and dismisses the US annual report on terrorism due to its clear dishonesty and the double standards applied by this regime to fighting terrorism,” Press TV reported.
“Iranians have been both victims of and heroes in fighting those terrorists, who have been created and supported by the United States,” Mousavi added.
The so-called report identified Iran as “the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism,” claiming the country has been providing support for “various terrorist groups” throughout the Middle East.
It came amid Washington’s continued and unreserved backing for anti-iran terrorist outfits, including the terrorist cult of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) that is responsible for slaying around 12,000 Iranians since the 1979 victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution.
In 2019, the year covered in the so-called report, the US also blacklisted Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) despite the elite military force’s indispensable advisory support for the regional countries’ fight against Takfiri terrorists. And in early 2020, Washington assassinated Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC’S Quds Force, who has won reputation as the Middle East’s most decisive and respected anti-terror personality.
The US report named the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements of Hezbollah and Hamas – that have been defending their respective people against deadly Israeli acts of aggression – as two of the groups that it said were being backed by Iran.
Mousavi added, “The regime of the United States, as the main sponsor of state terrorism and the most important supporter of the aggressive and occupying Zionist regime is in no position to have any claim to fighting terrorism and handing down any judgment in this regard.”
The spokesman reminded how history itself bears witness to the US’ creation of or support for terrorism.
Some American officials have, themselves, admitted this fact, including US President Donald Trump, who acknowledged on his electoral campaign that previous American administrations had created the Daesh Takfiri terror
with the first phase of a transition within the IAEA that would ultimately advance Tel Aviv’s position. Director General Yukio Amano underwent an unspecified medical procedure in September 2018, grew steadily weaker with a serious illness, and died on July 2, 2019.
Before his physical decline, Amano had announced plans to step down by March 2020, touching off a competition between senior IAEA officials for election to the top position. US and Israeli influence was immediately enhanced by the race, because any interested candidate required substantial backing from Washington for the requisite votes among the agency’s board of directors.
The Israelis had focused the IAEA’S attention on an alleged Iranian overt conversion program from the very beginning. Drawn from a covert program that took place from 2000 to 2003, the collection of supposedly purloined documents included a one-page flow sheet showing a process for converting uranium ore into a form of uranium that could be enriched.
But in its December 2015 “final assessment” of questions of “possible military dimensions,” the IAEA had concluded that the process shown in the document “was technically flawed and of low quality in comparison to what was available to Iran as part of its declared nuclear fuel cycle.” In other words, it wasn’t taken very seriously.
Netanyahu’s new “Iranian Nuclear Archive” included what was purported to be a May 2003 letter from the “project manager” of the “Health and Safety Group” for that same alleged covert nuclear weapons program.
The letter described a large covert uranium conversion plant and three plant designs. But the letter bore no marking that connected it with any Iranian government entity – only a crudely drawn symbol that could have been added by anyone.
What’s more, nothing about the facility designs supported the document’s authenticity, especially considering a senior Israeli intelligence official acknowledged to pro-israel lobbyist David Albright that no such plant was ever built.
Israel, nevertheless, continued to deploy those dubious documents to hammer home its point.
IAEA caves to Israel and US
The documents and photos the Israelis pushed with US support eventually prompted the IAEA to cave in to their demands. The agency sent three letters to Iran on July 5, August 9, and August 21, 2019, based entirely on the Israeli claims outfit and other such groups, Mousavi added.
“As the biggest victim of acts of terrorism that have majorly been conducted through US administrations’ direct or indirect support, and with the 17,000 martyrs that it has lost to these [atrocities], the Islamic Republic invariably stands on the frontline
about three “undeclared sites.”
In the missives, the IAEA claimed to have “detailed information” about what it called “possible undeclared nuclear material and nuclear-related activities” at each of site. It demanded “clarifications” in each case.
According to the IAEA, the first letter related to the “possible presence” between 2002 and 2003 of a natural uranium metal disc which it said “may not have been included in Iran’s declarations.” The letter was clearly referring to Lavizan-shian in Tehran, when it said the site “underwent extensive sanitation and leveling in 2003 and 2004.” At the time, the agency decided there was no point in visiting it.
The United States and Israel have always argued that Iran had completely removed the topsoil at the site in order to avoid detection by environmental sampling of some kind of nuclear-related work at the site. But that claim was false. In fact, the buildings belonging to the military contractor of Lavizanshian had been torn down, but topsoil remained.
The IAEA did undertake environmental sampling of the site in June 2004, acknowledging that the vegetation and soil samples collected at Lavizan-shian revealed no evidence of nuclear material. Reuters reported at the time that an IAEA official had said that “on-site inspections of Lavizan produced no proof that any soil had been removed at all.”
In its July 5 letter, the IAEA demanded to know whether an undeclared natural uranium metal disc had been present at the site and, if so, where it was located. That question was clearly based on a slide in the Israeli collection that Albright’s organization has described as summarizing how to make uranium deuteride, which has been used to create a neutral initiator for a nuclear explosion, with uranium metal chips and deuterium gas.
The second site, which has not been otherwise identified, “may have been used for the processing and conversion of uranium ore including fluorination in 2003,” according to the IAEA letter. It said the site “underwent significant changes in 2004, including the demolition of most buildings,” as though that constituted evidence of wrongdoing.
The claim made little sense given that, in April 2003, Iran had formally declared to the IAEA that it was opening lines at its Isfahan nuclear technology center for production of natural uranium metal for use in the production of shielding material.
At the third site, the IAEA stated, “outdoor conventional of the fight against terrorism on the regional and international scale,” he noted.
The spokesperson finally denounced Washington’s economic and medical terrorism targeting the Iranian nation as the latest example of the US’ terrorist measures against independent nations in the world.
explosive testing may have taken place in 2003” on “shielding” for use with “neutron detectors.” As part of the rationale for demanding clarification, the agency cited supposed efforts beginning in July 2019 to “sanitize part of the location.” This language was designed to imply that evidence of wrongdoing had been removed from the Iranian site.
We know that the site in question was near Abadeh, because Netanyahu showed satellite photos of the Abadeh site in June 2019 and again in late July of this year, when a set of buildings had been removed by the latter date. Netanyahu bragged that he was revealing “yet another secret nuclear site…exposed in the archives.”
However, IAEA wording suggested its letter was prompted not by any concrete evidence of nuclear activity at the Abadeh site, but by some evidence of the destruction of those buildings.
The IAEA thus chose the three sites based on nothing more than the fact that buildings were razed, and thanks to pressure applied by the Israelis and the United States. The notion that Iran “may have” used and stored undeclared nuclear material at undeclared site, moreover, was based solely on unvetted Israeli documents, contrary to the IAEA claim of “extensive and rigorous corroboration process.”
In provoking a needless crisis over obscure hypotheticals, the IAEA has once again lent itself to the political interests of Washington and Tel Aviv – just as it did during the Bush and Obama administrations. But this time the IAEA’S highly politicized campaign is serving the Israeli aim of making it politically impossible for the next administration to return to the Iran nuclear deal.
On June 8, Iran’s permanent mission to the IAEA demanded that any request for clarification under the additional protocol should be based on “authenticated information” and expressed “concern” over attempts to “reopen outstanding issues” that had been closed in 2015.
Iran views the new IAEA exercise as yet another salient of the Us-israeli “maximum pressure” strategy. Tehran has thus insisted that the IAEA cease its role as a de facto prosecutor for the Us-israeli special relationship.
Source: The Gray Zone
* Gareth Porter is an US independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.