'N-issue Israel tool for US election'

Press TV - Israel is using Iran's nuclear issue to push the Republican candidates' positions towards Israel in the 2012 election and to make sure the nominee is against Iran, a US professor says.

An International Atomic Energy Agency report saying Iran has been conducting research and experiments towards the developing of a nuclear weapon, has raised tensions in the Middle East, heightening Western pressure for harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Professor Nader Bagherzadeh, at the University of California Irvine, to further open up the issue.

The following is a rush transcription of the interview:

Press TV: The fact that the intelligence which is the backbone of the IAEA report comes from Israel and then the intelligence is incorporated into the IAEA chief, Yukio Amano's findings without any independent verification? How do you explain that?

 
Bagherzadeh: Yes I think this is another disastrous report, by Yukio Amano, he is done disservice to the agency, for instance, the information that comes from the laptop, plus other information that he is got from other sources,[Israel and the US] but it is really the repeat of what was announced a few years ago, there is nothing new on this.

 
What he should do on this report is clearly say this, as I tell you right now, that Iran is in full compliance. I stress full compliance within its Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement-the CSA. He should come out and say that. He should request for additional protocols, if he wants to, but that is no reason to dossier to the UNSC or cause any more resolutions.

 
He can demand what he wants, outside of the CSA, but it is not the responsibility of Iran to do it. If they want to they can do it voluntary, but he should say Iran is in full compliance.

 
Natanz is a safeguarded site. There were some compliance issue a few years ago, UF 6 with injected centrifuges, but that was resolved, with the agreed upon plan.

 
He does not even mention that agreed upon plan that El-Baradei had agreed to. So he is exactly going back on what IAEA has mentioned in the past. 

It is really a disappointing report. He is focusing on the dual use technologies, many of these technologies that were reported by member nations and others -by the way Israel is not am NPT member, it is an IAEA member- these dual use technologies are not mandated in the safeguard agreement. 

All these thing in article II is manufacturing nuclear weapon devises, it does not say preparation to manufacture, or it does not say about duel use technologies. For instance, you can work on fluoride for toothpaste, at the same time fluoride is used for the hexode-fluoride UF6, so is that mean that Iran cannot input the fluoride for making toothpaste, because it is a dual use material?

 
What they are trying to do is to limit the engagement with Iran, anything to do remotely possible with the activities of Iran nuclear. Such as; limit yourself to all the minor topics now related to high technologies, as I mention pushing these dual technologies is really unacceptable. 

And ultimately Iran could agree to AP,[additional protocol] when things are come down, and people are not talking about bunker busters, and so on, and open up for AP, but not at this really hot atmosphere of threat on Iran. 

Even the Republican nominee, Gingrich went on line [network] and was excited about “nuclear scientists are getting shot,” isn't this a terrorist comment? They have families, they have children, and they have wives, is that good to say that “we are very excited that the nuclear scientists are getting shot.” I don't know, it does not make sense at all. 

Press TV: Let me ask that from our guest in Irvine, Mr. Bagherzadeh that is the dooms day scenario, of course there have been consequentially many negative reactions to the news of possible attack, but tell us why you feel this is being ratcheted up to the point that it is, it has been excessive in terms of possible attack by Israel, this pressure that has been exerted on Iran, at this point looking at the authenticity of the IAEA report, and if you can combine that with the regional developments that are taking place, with fact that the US and its allies have lost major allies that they had in the region, such as Egypt, is there connection here? 

Bagherzadeh: Yes, I think so, and I think at the core of this, is basically to cover up the Palestinian issue, if you notice all of the sudden the Palestinian push for the UN membership has been covered [up] by all these threats, and dooms day scenarios that came out of Israel, all of a sudden it is a second item news. 

And the other issue is to basically push the candidates in the 2012 election to make sure which one would come out stronger in favor of Israel and against Iran. It is like betting on who is going to be the toughest on Iran.

 
And the third one is to make sure that the sanction being placed by creating this kind of threat and the fact that if nothing is done Israel will attack, and so on.

 
So the fact that maybe the resolution will not be submitted to the UNSC this round, but for spring, it is interesting to me because it gives ample time to do something with Iran and if it does not work out, there will be opportunity for pushing sanction to help the 2012 election, whoever is going to be the leader in that pack. 

So all of this together seems like a very ominous way of raising the temperature regarding actions, and it is wrong in my opinion, it should be in a way to promote negotiation, to find out if the Russian FM Lavrov is working on this, the idea of step by step removing the pressure, removing open questions, it might be the only way forward, without any threat, so there would be confidence building in Iran. 

If we open up the non-nuclear facilities, there would not be the new target for bombing, this is at the core of the additional protocol, and basically opening up non-declared sites, does that means that is going to be the new target? So it has to come from the reducing the threat, and confidence building form the both sides to take place. 

All the rhetoric is actually make it all worse; I don't think in relationship with the US, Iran and the US have been so far apart on this topic. And it is really disappointing to say the least, much worse than what it was during the Bush era.