Fox News Links Iran To Osama & 9/11

[xamsx]

Sound familiar? History repeats itself?

YouTube - Fox News Links Iran To Osama And 9/11

Oh, I dunno.. like how when the Bush administration & MSM, together, brainwashed everyone into believing Iraq had WMD's and how it was a just reason for us to invade the country? Or is that just me?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why would a devout Sunni like UBL send family to Shi'a Iran???

 

[dross]

Sound familiar? History repeats itself?


Oh, I dunno.. like how when the Bush administration & MSM, together, brainwashed everyone into believing Iraq had WMD's and how it was a just reason for us to invade the country? Or is that just me?

Some examples of Bush brainwashing everyone into believing Iraq had WMD:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

And as to our reasons for invading Iraq, passed by Congress 297 to 126, including 82 Dems, making it a hell of a lot more bipartisan than anything we've seen passed recently - here is what the resolution gave as its reason, WMD being only one of them:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

 

[wtfd661]

Now come on Dross, you can't let facts get in the way of liberal media myth. How dare you

 

[xamsx]

Some examples of Bush brainwashing everyone into believing Iraq had WMD:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

And as to our reasons for invading Iraq, passed by Congress 297 to 126, including 82 Dems, making it a hell of a lot more bipartisan than anything we've seen passed recently - here is what the resolution gave as its reason, WMD being only one of them:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

You've proved your point, sir
So the brainwashing actually goes back 9-10 years (because we didn't find them..), but you have to admit, the matter was really pushed by Bush, as we went into "war" because of it.. no?

And just to clarify, this isn't me bashing Republicans or Democrats (or Libertarians or any other party). I'm neither left nor right.. I, myself, smash that standard. That's just another dividing factor that's put on the citizens of our country. I just simply stand for right and wrong.

 

[Panama]

I dunno, maybe its just me. But it seems that Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction and used them on its on Kurdish citizens in Northern Iraq, and there was that little thing of ignoring a few UN mandates?

UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq

The list below is out of date. For resolutions since 2004, please see Iraqanalysis.org
The following is a complete list of Security Council Resolutions (SCRs) involving Iraq. The overwhelming majority of resolution since 1990 relate to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and subsequent developments. The resolutions deemed particularly important are indicated in bold. A full list of SCRs is available here. Guides to the SCRs relating to Iraq are maintained by the Federation of American Scientists (here) and the UN's Office of the Iraq Programme (here); a further compilation of SCRs on Iraq is maintained by Saleh Iraq site (here). The Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General has a brief guide to the resolutions on all the UN sanctions regimes, Use of sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 |2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 |1995 | 1994 |1993 | 1992 | 1991 | 1990 | pre-1990 resolutions on Iraq | Zimbabwe resolutions
2004

• US/UK draft resolution, May 2004
  • On 23 May, the US and UK circulated a draft resolution (pdf, pdf ) to govern the transfer of power to a caretaker Iraqi government

2003

• 1518 (24 November 2003)
  • Establishes a committee (the 1518 committee) to identify resources which should be transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq. This replaced some of the post-sanctions work of the '661 committee', which officially ceased to exist on 22 November 2003
  • Adopts guidelines on the interpretation of resolution 1483's requirements for transfer of resources to the Development Fund for Iraq. The guidelines have been published as SC/7791 IK/356 (12 June 2003) and SC/7831 IK/372 (29 July 2003).
• 1511 (16 October 2003) (pdf version)
  • This resolution:
    • mandates the UN to 'strengthen its vital role in Iraq' (para 8)
    • 'underscores...the temporary nature of the Coalition Provisional Authority' (para 1), welcomes the Governing Council and its ministers as "the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim administration" (para 4), and supports moves towards self-government under its auspices(para 3)
    • invites the Governing Council to draw up, by 15 December, a timetable for drafting a constitution and holding elections, in cooperation with, and assisted by, the CPA and the UN representative (para 7 & 8). Requests the CPA to report to the Security Council on progress towards the transfer of power (para 6)
    • authorises a multinational security force, and urges states to contribute to it and to the reconstruction of Iraq (para 13 & 14). Requests states to contribute financially (para 20), including at a Donors Conference (para 21), by providing required resources (para 22) and by transferring assets of the former regime to the Development Fund for Iraq (para 24)
    • Requests the Secretary General to report on UN operations in Iraq (para 12). Requests the US to report, at least every 6 months, on military matters (para 25). Decides that the Security Council should review the mission of the UN force within a year, and that its mandate will expire once power has been transferred to an Iraqi government (para 15)
    • Reiterates the demand made in Resolution 1483 for an International Advisory and Monitoring Board to supervise administration of the Development Fund for Iraq (para 23)
  • Three earlier US drafts for this resolution were made public, on 4 September, 1 October and 13 October 2003. Postings to the CASI discussion list summarise differences between the first and second drafts, and between the second and third drafts. Amendments to the first draft were publicly proposed by France and Germany, and by Syria. Several of the Franco-German proposals were incorporated into the resolution.
• 1500 (14 August 2003)
  • Establishes UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, as proposed by the Secretary General in a report on July 17
  • Welcomes creation of Governing Council
• 1490 (3 July 2003)
  • Disbands the UN Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM), and removes the demilitarised zone betweeen Iraq and Kuwait. Comes into force on 6 October 2003.
• 1483 (22 May 2003)
  • Lifts non-military sanctions (para 10)
  • Recognises Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development Fund for Iraq
  • Summaries and analysis can be found on pages 10-13 of the Open Society Institute paper "Reconstructing Iraq: a guide to the issues", and in this article from the American Society of International Law. A Parliamentary research paper (2 June 2003) provides a British government perspective.
  • Initial US-UK draft (9 May)
  • Revised US-UK-Spain draft (15 May)
  • The Open Society Institute criticized aspects of this resolution, and suggested changes to allow greater supervision of the occupying powers
• 1476 (24 April 2003)
• 1472 (28 March 2003)
  • Gives UN more authority to administer the "oil for food" programme for the next 45 days. Authorizes the Secretary-General to establish alternative locations for the delivery of humanitarian supplies and equipment, and proceed with approved contracts after a review to determine priorities. Other steps called for include: transferring unencumbered funds between accounts created pursuant to the programme on an exceptional and reimbursable basis to ensure the delivery of essential humanitarian supplies; and using funds deposited in the accounts to compensate suppliers and shippers for agreed additional shipping, transportation and storage costs incurred as a result of diverting and delaying shipments
• Resolution proposed by Spain, the US and the UK, which would have authorized military action against Iraq (7 March 2003)
  • Comments of Kofi Annan on 10 March, 11 March and 17 March
  • Joint statement by France, Russia and Germany in opposition to a UN resolution authorizing force
  • Statements by France and Germany (19 March)

2002

• 1454 (30 December 2002): Iraq-Kuwait
  • implements revisions to the Goods Review List. See also the accompanying UN press release.
• 1447 (4 December 2002): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends the oil-for-food programme by 6 months, obliges the council to review the goods review list within one month and asks the Secretary General to produce a report on the adequacy of Iraq's distribution mechamisms within the country and oil-for-food revenues within six months. See the accompanying press release.
• 1443 (25 November 2002): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends the oil-for-food programme by 9 days only, due to disagreements over US proposals to broaden the Goods Review List. See the accompanying UN press release. See also CASI's press release on the politicisation of the oil-for-food programme.
• 1441 (8 November 2002): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Earlier drafts of this resolution are as follows: the US/UK drafts of 2 October 2002, 25 October 2002 and 5 November 2002; the Russian draft and the French draft of 23 October 2002. A collections of critical comments on the resolution can be found on the websites of the Institute for Public Accuracy and Eclipse review.
  • Post-vote statements by the US, UK, France, Russia and China are available from the Global Policy Forum
• 1409 (14 May 2002): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends the oil-for-food programme by six months, and introduces a new import procedure. Only items on the annexed Goods Review List (GRL) are to be reviewed by the Sanctions Committee. Official version of the GRL (S/2002/515) are here (on the Unmovic site) and here (on the OIP site). Although the GRL is annexed to a letter from the US ambassador dated 3 May 2002 - before the resolution was even offically passed - it was only released on 14 August 2002. An unofficial version of the "Goods Review List" is also available on the UN Office of the Iraq programme website, in doc (2.2MB) and pdf versions (4.6MB). Some background is provided in the UN Press Release and a News Centre report. See also CASI's press release in response to the resolution (15 May 2002); Statement by Save the Children UK (May 2002); Statements by CAFOD of 16 May 2002 and 27 June 2002; and the analyses of Sarah Graham-Brown, Sanctions Renewed on Iraq (14 May 2002), and Colin Rowat, Iraq Sanctions Saga Continues amid Policy Confusion (10 June 2002). See also the fact sheet from the United States mission to the UN on the "Goods Review List" (14 May 2002).

2001

• 1382 (29 November 2001): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends the oil-for-food programme by 180 days, commencing Phase XI on 1 December 2001. It also adopts a new "goods review list" (GRL) and procedures for its application to come into force on 30 May 2002. Note that the GRL consists not only of the items actually listed in the annex to the resolution, but also those on the "1051 lists" and those listed within a new 150-page list drawn up by the US. This latter list was an annex to a letter from the US ambassador dated 27 November 2001; a copy sent to CASI can be viewed here. All applications to import goods will have to be reviewed by Unmovic and the UN Office of the Iraq Programme to determine if the proposed imports contain items on the GRL.
• 1360 (3 July 2001): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends the oil-for-food programme by 150 days to begin Phase X, after no agreement was reached over the new UK proposals for a modified sanctions regime. The subsequent exchange of letters between the UN and Iraq, agreeing to the continuation of the programme under the terms of this resolution, is dated 5 July 2001. The text of the Security Council debates are available for 26 June 2001 and 28 June 2001. CASI's full index of proposals and statements from May to July 2001 is available here.
• 1352 (1 June 2001): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends Phase IX of the oil-for-food programme by one month only, after there is general agreement that more time is necessary to review the UK's draft resolution (and annex) to change the scope and mode of operation of the sanctions.

2000

• 1330 (4 December 2000): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends the oil-for-food programme by 180 days, to commence Phase IX. The resolution also allocates another $600m to oil-industry spares, requests exploration into a "cash component" (para. 15), reduces Compensation Fund deductions to 25% (para 12), requests electricity and housing "green lists" (para 10), expresses "readiness to consider" paying Iraq's UN membership dues out of oil-for-food revenue, seeks expanded versions of the existing "green lists" (para 11), and asks the Secretary-General to report on other oil export routes from Iraq. UN Press Release here.
• 1302 (8 June 2000): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Begins Phase VIII of "oil for food". The UN's press release is here. Paragraph 8 asks for water and sanitation "green lists". Paragraph 9 extends the oil spare parts permission of SCR 1293. Paragraph 18 calls for the establishment of a team of "independent experts to prepare by 26 November 2000 a comprehensive report and analysis of the humanitarian situation in Iraq, including the current humanitarian needs [...] and recommendations to meet those needs, within the framework of the existing resolutions". According to a UN source, the UK and US insisted upon the final clause of paragraph 18, knowing that the Iraqi government's position would prevent it from cooperating with such an analysis. As a result, there has been no cooperation and no such report has been produced. The BBC's report outlines the politics behind the comprehensive report. AP's report concentrates on the debate around bombing in the "no fly zones". On 30 October, the chair of the group of independent experts mentioned in the resolution was announced as Thorvald Stoltenberg of Norway.
• 1293 (31 March 2000): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Doubles permitted oil spare part imports for Phases VI and VII. The UN's press release is here. Paragraphs 53 - 57 of the UN Secretary-General's 10 March 2000 report (S/2000/208) explains the background to this doubling. See CNN's story for mention of some of the politics of the resolution.

1999

• 1284 (17 December 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Replaces Unscom with Unmovic, demands Iraqi co-operation on prisoners of war, alters the "oil for food" programme, and discusses the possible suspension of sanctions in ambiguous terms. The statement by Sir Jeremy Greenstock in the Security Council at the introduction of the resolution is here; the full debates in the Council are here; and the UN's press release is here. The UK draft resolution preceding this is here. See also CASI's briefing or its press release.
• 1281 (10 December 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Begins Phase VII of "oil for food", to start on 12 December 1999. The report requested in paragraph 9 is S/2000/26. Listen to the BBC's radio story, including an explanation that the previous week-long extensions may have been too short to allow Iraq to sign oil contracts.
• 1280 (3 December 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends Phase VI to 11 December 1999 due to wrangling over SCR 1284.
• 1275 (19 November 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Extends Phase VI to 4 December 1999 due to wrangling over SCR 1284.
• 1266 (4 October 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Allows an additional $3.04 billion in oil sales to offset deficits during previous Phases and (possibly) to slow the rise in oil prices.
• 1242 (21 May 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Begins Phase VI of "oil for food", to start on 25 May 1999.

1998

• 1210 (24 November 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Begins Phase V of "oil for food", to start on 26 November 1998.
• 1205 (5 November 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Echoes SCR 1194, demands that the Iraqi government "provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with inspectors and alludes to the threat to "international peace and security" posed by the non-cooperation.
• 1194 (9 September 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • "Condemns the decision by Iraq ... to suspend cooperation with [Unscom] and the IAEA", demands that the decisions be reversed and cancels October 1998 scheduled sanctions review.
• 1175 (19 June 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Gives Iraq permission to apply to import up to $300 million of oil industry spare parts this Phase to allow it to increase its oil production to the cap set in SCR 1153.
• 1158 (25 March 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Continues Phase III but under the enhanced provisions of SCR 1153.
• 1154 (2 March 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Commends the Secretary-General for securing commitments from the Iraqi government to fully comply with weapons inspections on his mission to Baghdad, and endorses the memorandum of understanding (S/1998/166) that was signed on 23 February. The mapping of the areas of the eight "presidential sites" by a UN Technical Mission is described in an annexed report to a letter from the Secretary-General of 27 February (S/1998/166/Add.1). The procedures for the inspection of "presidential sites" are laid out in an annex to the letter from the Secretary-General of 8 March 1998 (S/1998/208). This agreement put off US and British bombing threats.
• 1153 (20 February 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Agrees to increase the cap on permitted Iraqi oil sales to $5.256 billion per Phase once the Secretary-General has approved an "enhanced distribution plan" for the new revenue. Recognises the importance of infrastructure and project-based purchases. Phase IV eventually begins on 30 May 1998. Resolution passed during Unscom crisis.

1997

• 1143 (4 December 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Begins Phase III of "oil for food", to start on 5 December 1997 and welcomes the Secretary-General's intention to submit a supplementary report on possible improvements in the "oil for food" programme.
• 1137 (12 November 1997): Iraq-Kuwait
  • Rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections unless the composition of Unscom teams is altered to limit the number of inspectors from the US, and to prohibit Unscom overflights. Imposes travel ban on officials to be lifted when full cooperation resumes. Sanctions review to be in April 1998 if cooperation has been restored.
• 1134 (23 October 1997): Iraq-Kuwait
  • Reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce in September 1997 that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors. Threatens travel ban on obstructive Iraqi officials not "carrying out bona fide diplomatic assignments or missions" if non-cooperation continues. Sanctions reviews again delayed.
• 1129 (12 September 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Alters timing of permitted Phase II oil sales in response to Iraqi government's refusal to sell oil until its Distribution Plan was approved by the UN.
• 1115 (21 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • "Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with Unscom. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21 and 28 of SCR 687) until the next Unscom report and threatens to "impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".
• 1111 (4 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Begins Phase II of "oil for food", to start on 8 June 1997.

1996

• 1060 (12 June 1996): Iraq.
  • On Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission.
• 1051 (27 March 1996): Iraq.
  • Establishes mechanism for long-term monitoring of potentially "dual use" Iraqi imports and exports, as called for by SCR 715.

1995

• 986 (14 April 1995): Iraq
  • New "oil for food" resolution, allowing $1 billion in oil sales every 90 days. Memorandum of understanding signed by UN and Government of Iraq on 20 May 1996; Phase I begins on 10 December 1996. The details of implementation, requested in paragraph 12, are here.

1994

• 949 (15 October 1994): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • "Condemns recent military deployments by Iraq in the direction of ... Kuwait", demands an immediate withdrawal and full co-operation with Unscom. According to a spokesman for the US Central Command, the resolution was passed following a threatening buildup of Iraqi forces near the border with Kuwait, and bars Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone.
• 899 (4 March 1994): Iraq-Kuwait.
  • Allows compensation to private Iraqi citizens who lost assets to the boundary demarcation process.

1993

• 833 (27 May 1993): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • "Welcomes ... the successful conclusion of the work of the [Boundary Demarcation] Commission". The Iraqi National Assembly recognised the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Kuwait, within the boundaries laid down by the Boundary Demarcation Commission, on 10 November 1994, and its decision was ratified in a decree signed by Saddam Hussein on the same day.
• 806 (5 February 1993): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Arms UNIKOM to prevent border incursions by Iraq.

1992

• 778 (2 October 1992): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Deplores Iraq's refusal to implements SCRs 706 and 712 and recalls Iraq's liabilities. Takes steps to transfer funds (including Iraqi assets overseas) into the UN account established to pay for compensation and humanitarian expenses.
• 773 (26 August 1992): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Responds to a report on progress by the UN Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission and notes that the Commission "is not reallocating territory between Kuwait and Iraq".

1991

• 715 (11 October 1991): Iraq (PDF).
  • Approves the plans of Unscom and the IAEA, including for long term monitoring. Iraq agreed to the monitoring system established by this resolution on 26 November 1993.
• 712 (19 September 1991): Iraq (PDF).
  • Rejects the Secretary-General's suggestion that at least $2 billion in oil revenue be made available for humanitarian needs; instead allows total sale of $1.6 billion. Eventually rejected by Government of Iraq.
• 707 (15 August 1991): Iraq (PDF).
  • Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry. Also grants permission for Unscom and the IAEA to conduct flights throughout Iraq, for surveillance or logistical purposes.
• 706 (15 August 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Decides to allow emergency oil sale by Iraq to fund compensation claims, weapons inspection and humanitarian needs in Iraq. The text of the debates on this resolution in the Security Council is available here.
• 705 (15 August 1991): Iraq (PDF).
  • "Decides that ... compensation to be paid by Iraq ... shall not exceed 30 per cent of the annual value of the exports".
• 700 (17 June 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Approves the Secretary-General's guidelines on an arms and dual-use embargo on Iraq and calls upon states to act consistently with them. Paragraph 5 of this resolution makes the 661 committee responsible for the on-going monitoring regime, thus ensuring that it would retain a role in the long-term relationship between the UN and Iraq.
• 699 (17 June 1991): Iraq (PDF).
  • Approves the Secretary-General's plan for Unscom and the IAEA and asks for support from Member States.
• 692 (20 May 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Establishes the UN Compensation Commission and asks the Secretary-General to indicate the maximum possible level of Iraq's contribution to the Compensation Fund.
• 689 (9 April 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Approves the Secretary-General's report on the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM).
• 688 (5 April 1991): Iraq (PDF).
  • "Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population" in the post-war civil war and "[d]emands that Iraq ... immediately end this repression". 688 is occasionally claimed to provide the legal basis for the American and British "no fly zones". These claims are incorrect both because 688 does not invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter, a necessary condition for the use of force, and because it does not authorise specific measures to uphold human rights in Iraq, such as "no fly zones". The BBC has an outline of the "no fly zones" here. The UK Select Committee on Defence addresses the legal issue briefly here.
• 687 (3 April 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Declares effective a formal cease-fire (upon Iraqi acceptance), establishes the UN Special Commission on weapons (Unscom), extends sanctions and, in paragraphs 21 and 22, provides ambiguous conditions for lifting or easing them. Described as a "Christmas tree", because "so much was hung on it". The fourth preambulary clause, on "the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions", has been referred to as the "Saddam Hussein clause" as it has been used to link the continuation of sanctions with the survival of the present Iraqi regime. The text of the debates on this resolution in the Security Council is available here.
• 686 (2 March 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Affirms the "independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" and sets out terms for a cease-fire. The use of force remains valid to fulfil these conditions.
• 685 (31 January 1991): Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).

1990

• 678 (29 November 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • "Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.
• 677 (28 November 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Concerned by Iraq's attempts to "alter the demographic composition of ... Kuwait and to destroy the civil records".
• 676 (28 November 1990): Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 674 (29 October 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • "Reminds Iraq that ... it is liable for any loss ... as a result of the invasion ... of Kuwait".
• 671 (27 September 1990): Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 670 (25 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Strengthens and clarifies the embargo; confirms that it applies to aircraft. France and the USA disagree on whether 670 requires 661 approval for flights without cargo. Paragraph 12 of the resolution also invokes the possibility of unspecified "measures" against states that evade the sanctions regime. This paragraph seems to have been directed against Jordan and Sudan in particular. It caused disquiet within delegations, as the United Nations Charter has traditionally been interpreted as only permitting the Security Council to impose such measures against the state responsible for a breach of or threat to the peace.
• 669 (24 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Asks the Sanctions Committee to consider requests for economic assistance from countries harmed by the sanctions on Iraq.
• 667 (16 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Protests "the closure of diplomatic and consular missions in Kuwait".
• 666 (13 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • "Decides [to] ... keep the situation regarding foodstuffs ... under constant review", giving the Security Council responsibility for determining when "humanitarian circumstances" had arisen. The text of the debates on this resolution in the Security Council is available here.
• 665 (25 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Imposes a shipping blockade by calling for the use of "such measures ... as may be necessary" to enforce the maritime embargo. In effect, this resolution reassigns some of the practical responsibility for monitoring compliance with sanctions away from the UN machinery, in the form of the 661 committee, and to the States imposing the naval blockade.
• 664 (18 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Demands that Iraq release "third state nationals".
• 662 (9 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Decides that Iraq's annexation of Kuwait is "null and void".
• 661 (6 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Imposes comprehensive sanctions on Iraq and establishes a sanctions committee (the "661 committee") in paragraph 6 to monitor them. Paragraphs 3 and 4 drawn from those of SCR 253.
• 660 (2 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
  • Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demands Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
• 651 (29 March 1990): Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).

Resolutions on Iraq before 1990.

• 642 (29 September 1989): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 631 (8 February 1989): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 620 (26 August 1988): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 619 (9 August 1988): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 612 (9 May 1988): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 598 (20 July 1987): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 588 (8 October 1986): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 582 (24 February 1986): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 540 (31 October 1983): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 522 (4 October 1982): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 514 (12 July 1982): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 487 (19 June 1981): Iraq - Israel (PDF).
• 479 (28 September 1980): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
• 348 (28 May 1974): Iraq - Iran (PDF only).

 

[jblomenberg16]

You've proved your point, sir
So the brainwashing actually goes back 9-10 years (because we didn't find them..), but you have to admit, the matter was really pushed by Bush, as we went into "war" because of it.. no?

And just to clarify, this isn't me bashing Republicans or Democrats (or Libertarians or any other party). I'm neither left nor right.. I, myself, smash that standard. That's just another dividing factor that's put on the citizens of our country. I just simply stand for right and wrong.

I'd agree with one exception. I don't see this as brainwashing by either side, party, or president. I see this as an act of the government trying to take advantage of the circumstances to garner support for what is otherwise an unpopular and somewhat mysterious conflict. Whether we are very trusting or very sceptical of our government, we all have to admit that they have access to many more intelligence resources than you or I do - yes, I know, we do have access to the Interwebs...

Even at the break of WWII in '39, the US and others were not thrilled after going out and trying to stop this radical, tyrannical guy named Hitler, and his pals. In hindsight it was pretty good that eventually the Allies did get involved and put an end to his reign of terror.

There was/is reason ever since WWII (and probably before) for the US and the rest of the Western world to be concerned about the stability of the Persian Gulf region. This includes Iraq and the WMD's, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, Israel and Hamas, and so on. The area controls huge amounts of vital resources needed by the entire planet - oil reserves, so the area is of strategic and economic importance as well, even after you take away the terrorism threat.

There are certainly some facts that have been used to help make the idea of a full scale military war (with some noted concerns about whether we've ever formally declared war in some of these areas) more appealing to the Congress, Media, and the general public. Both Bush's certainly are more associated with the Wars in the Gulf since both were POTUS during the start of them.

I think W's bluntness in his communication style made it seem a bit more like he was trying to sell us on the premise the war was necessary, when in reality he was trying to convince us that the time to act is now, when we have the support of the rest of the world on the heels of the 9-11 attacks, much like Pearl Harbor was the final act that got the US into WWII (we'll leave the similarities and conspiracy theories to another thread ).


Unfortunately our media has become more interested in sensationalizing everything that is opposite of the party in power than in reporting the news. Sure, the majority of the media was creaming their jeans over Obama and the Democrats during the last election, but we're seeing that after little more than a year, the honeymoon is over and they're already back to their usual mud slinging. The result is that everyone is now so hyper sensitive to everything, that immediately we all think: "Scandal, brainwash, conspiracy, they're not telling us everything, and so on."

At the end of the day, most major media outlets are FOR PROFIT, and the name of the game is getting the scoop, so that you get readers, so that you can sell advertisements, so that you can make money. What better way to do that than to more or less make our government into a large scale soap opera / Jerry Springer episode.

 

[Cat-Herder]

 

[jeremy]

Dross and Panama ther you go with facts again...

I was really wanting to try out my Afghan tinfoil hat!

 

[SavageEagle]

Ok, well, to stick with the OP, the video is quoting from a UK news media about the possibility of ObL in Iran, but Iran itself is basically saying that members of his immediate family are living there. Be it by force or for safety.

Also, the video is just speculation. They say that a few times and a lot at the end that it is all just speculation.

However, those lists about Iraq looks too much like reasons why we should invade IRAN. I say let Israel do their own thing and defend Israel. If Iran is stupid enough to attack American military that is defending Israel, that would be a blatant declaration of war against us.

No, I don't think it's wise or in our best interests to go to war with Iran. If we even WERE to go to war with Iran I would strongly advise against invasion with ground troops and just stay on the defensive.

All that doesn't really matter though because beyond defending a great ally in Israel, we have no business getting involved anyway unless they attack us first.

So the question becomes:

Does any of this even really matter?

 

[Cat-Herder]

Dross and Panama ther you go with facts again...

I was really wanting to try out my Afghan tinfoil hat!

Although what dross and panama posted is factually correct in that those people DID say those things, and the resolutions passed DID contain those reasons, it is RHETORICAL and not factual in nature. C'mon, do you believe ANYTHING from the mouths of Clinton, Pelosi, Albright, Gore, Bush, etc?

Just because Senator X comes out and says something surely doesn't mean it's true. And just because a bipartisan vote from a group of Vampires contains some "facts" that we'll never see the intel for doesn't mean it's time to set up a Regime Change business. These people clearly don't work for us, and all i have to ask is "Who Benefits"? Look around, it sure wasn't the US citizen.

Anyway, believe whatever you want. I find it funny that any of you are quoting the UN....

 

[M107]

I don't know if there were WMD's or not, but a buddy of mine works for the Nuclear Regulatory Comm. and he's been over to Iraq a few times and all he can say is he's there for clean up. I say Iraq had something and even if they didn't they were working on something and would have used it or given it to someone that would, on the U.S. or one of our allies! Thanks to our men and woman of our armed forces for stoping them!

 

[jeremy]

Hmmm...

If Former President Clinton would have done the job he was elected to do, we would not have most of the current mess that we have right now. He had a lot more avenues to approach the issues than did Former President G. W. Bush. This could have stopped way short of regime changes.

I have a very endepth knowledge of the Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian histories during this time. If the UN resolutions would have been enforced the Iraq situation may have fixed itself, we'll never know that will we though. Also if you look at the Afghanistan situation that we helped build that actually goes all the way back to the times of Former President Carter...

Appearently you are not familiar with Global Politics. The UN is the stage that this level of politics and diplomacy is played at. Those UN resolutions were passed by the majority of the Member Nations and the UNSC. Why were they not enforced...

Soldiers are the last step of diplomacy.

Trust me I know better than most how crooked Polititions actually are.

 

[Panama]

Getting slightly off topic again......

Facts and truth are not changed by who has or knows them, they are still facts and truth. I trust the UN about as far as I could throw their asses, (out of the U.S.) however once again, even a person you totally despise can be correct in fact.

It is fact that Saddam Hussein was paying 25K to young Palestinians families, if their young sons would blow themselves up in Israel. Palestinian mothers proudly told this on camera and thanked Saddam for his generosity.
I think you call that a terrorist sponsor, I know I do.

Saddam Hussein did use weapons of mass destruction on his own people in Halabja, the poison gas attack occurred in the period of March 16–17, 1988 The attack instantly killed thousands of people (3,200-5,000 dead instantly) and injured 7,000-10,000, most of them women and children, thousands more died in the years after the attack.
The attack was, as of 2009, the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.
I think you call that, having & using weapons of mass destruction, I know I do.

But now to get back on topic,

If Iran were to go down the same path, i.e. murdering its own citizens, sponsoring terrorist groups, (which they are currently doing both) what would you suggest?
Would you suggest we do nothing, as we did at the beginning of WWII and before 9/11, just sit back and wait for it (the attack like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor) to come to us ........again?

I firmly believe if Iran is allowed to build nukes, Israel and the U.S. will pay dearly for not stopping this wacko nut case dictator from acquiring nuclear weapons.

We can disagree on the process of how we should stop them, but surely we can agree, at just how devastating it could possibly be, if we do not stop them.

 

[Cat-Herder]

well, your beliefs and mine just differ, i guess...

What Happened in Kurdish Halabja?

and regardless whether it was the iraqis or iranians, we were fully supporting both sides in that conflict. i guess it boils down to which flavor of spin your taste prefers.

I'm personally sick to death of our interventionist foreign policy and the never-ending wars so many of our leaders seek to make profit from.

Al Qaeda is a construction of the large global intelligence agencies. For the most part, aside from real resistance struggles (palestine, tamil tigers, farc, etc) terrorism is state-sponsored and geared toward effecting global government. Your government WANTS you to ask it to protect you, and the majority follow blindly.

Most people don't understand that the intelligence community operates exactly like the classic "terrorist organization" does. Therefore it is impossible for them to believe that highly precision operations can be pulled off without "everyone in government" knowing about them.
I too often feel like i'm beating my head against a very thick brick wall on that one......
As far as 9/11 is concerned (and this is to get it back on topic, i suppose) too many roads lead to Israel, and the intelligence services to believe the official story.
There were simply too many big players with too much to gain for me to believe that 19 saudis defeated NORAD.

I'm not looking for a flame-war or anything, but it really pains me to see FAUX news pulling this crap when there are still thousands of unanswered questions about 9/11, and it just seems that this is more spin to escalate the wars in the middle east.

I fought the first one, and i'm really glad i don't have to go back there to play this "resource war" game anymore.
Thanks for your service, and keep breathing!

 

[Panama]

Cat-Herder,
Opinions are sole property of their respective owners.
Yours and mine will never mesh, but that's O.K.
I am thankful (today) we live in a relatively free country, where (today) we can each have our very own.
Thank you for your past service, and good luck to you sir!

 

[haldir]

It wasn't just US politicians. The Russians and Germans were against us going into Iraq. They both believed Hussein had WMDs. They just didn't believe we should invade. As has been said, he had used them in the past, so it was clear that he did have them at some point. So this denial now is just historic revisionism.

Report: Iran looking to smuggle raw uranium from Kazakhstan


If the nuclear program is just for the peaceful generation of electricity, why all the secrecy, in this case and across the board? "Intel Report: Iran Looking to Smuggle Raw Uranium," from the Associated Press, December 29:

VIENNA -- Iran is close to clinching a deal to clandestinely import 1,350 tons of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan, according to an intelligence report obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday. Diplomats said the assessment was heightening international concern about Tehran's nuclear activities.​

Such a purified uranium ore deal would be significant because Tehran appears to be running out of the material, which it needs to feed its uranium enrichment program.​

The report was drawn up by a member nation of the International Atomic Energy agency and provided to the AP on condition of that the country not be identified because of the confidential nature of the information.​

Such imports are banned by the U.N. Security Council.​

In New York, Burkina Faso's U.N. Ambassador Michel Kafando, a co-chair of the Security Council's Iran sanctions committee, referred questions Tuesday about a potential deal between Iran and Kazakhstan to his sanctions adviser, Zongo Saidou.​

Saidou told the AP that, as far as he knew, none of the U.N.'s member nations have alerted the committee about any such allegations. "We don't have any official information yet regarding this kind of exchange between the two countries," Saidou said. "I don't have any information; I don't have any proof."​

A senior U.N. official said the agency was aware of the intelligence report's assessment but could not yet draw conclusions. He demanded anonymity for discussing confidential information. A Western diplomat from a member of the IAEA's 35-nation board said the report was causing "concern" among countries that have seen it and generating "intelligence chatter." The diplomat also requested anonymity for discussing intelligence information.​

A two-page summary of the report obtained by the AP said deal could be completed within weeks. It said Tehran was willing to pay $450 million, or close to 315 million euros, for the shipment.​

The price is high because of the secret nature of the deal and due to Iran's commitment to keep secret the elements supplying the material," said the summary. An official of the country that drew up the report said "elements" referred to state employees acting on their own without approval of the Kazakh government.​

After-hours calls put in to offices of Kazatomprom, the Kazak state uranium company, in Kazakhstan and Moscow, were not answered Tuesday. Iranian nuclear officials also did not pick up their telephones.​

Purified ore, or uranium oxide, is processed into a uranium gas, which is then spun and re-spun to varying degrees of enrichment. Low enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel, and upper-end high enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.​

Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze its enrichment program and related activities that could be used to make nuclear weapons.​

Tehran denies such aspirations, saying it wants to enrich only to fuel an envisaged network of power reactors.​