~penarik beca

Dalam posting bertajuk "Beginikah cerita pecacai Yahudi Zionis?" saya menyiarkan cerita kelaku jahat si pecacai. Antara lain, saya siarkan berita bertajuk "US, Malaysia say world must send 'clear signal' to Iran".

Di bawah ni cerita-cerita clear signal yang Najib, Umno dan BN nak bagi kepada Iran:

Iran will respond to any attack with ‘iron fist’: Leader

TEHRAN -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei warned on Thursday that if any country attacks Iran, it must ready itself to “receive a strong slap and iron fist” from the Iranian Armed Forces.

“If the thought of invasion against the Islamic Republic of Iran crosses anybody’s mind, he must ready himself to receive a strong slap and iron fist from the Army, Sepah (IRGC), and Basij, and in one word from the great Iranian nation,” Ayatollah Khamenei asserted.

The United States has repeatedly said that all options including military attack are open to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Israel has also threatened to launch attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.

The Leader said, “The enemies, especially the United States and its puppets and the Zionist regime, should be aware that the Iranian nation will not invade any country or nation, but it will respond to any invasion or threat with full force in a way that it will break up invaders from within.”

The Leader added the Iranians are “not a kind of nation that just sit idly by and look at threats of the fake materialistic powers, which are worm-eaten.”

IAEA report unbalanced, politically motivated: Iran envoy

TEHRAN – The International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear program is unbalanced, unprofessional, and politically motivated, the Iranian ambassador to the agency has said.

Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh made the remarks in an interview with the Fars News Agency published on Wednesday after IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano released a report on Iran’s nuclear activities on Tuesday, in which it said that Iran appears to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting secret research, according to Reuters.

Citing what it called “credible” information from member states and elsewhere, the agency listed a series of activities applicable to developing nuclear weapons, such as high explosives testing and development of an atomic bomb trigger.

Some of the cited research and development work by Iran have both civilian and military applications, but “others are specific to nuclear weapons,” said the report.

The IAEA “has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” the UN body said in the report, which included an unusual 13-page annex with technical descriptions of research with explosives and computer simulations applicable to nuclear detonations.

It added, “The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured program, and that some activities may still be ongoing.”

The IAEA report included information from both before and after 2003. It voiced “particular concern” about information given by two member states that Iran had carried out computer modeling studies relevant to nuclear weapons in 2008-09.

“The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency,” the IAEA said.

The information also indicated that Iran had built a large explosives vessel at the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments, which are “strong indicators of possible weapon development.”

IAEA report repetition of old claims

Ambassador Soltanieh said that the report “is the repetition of old claims, which Iran had proved baseless in a 117-page written reply.”

Amano released such a report despite the fact that “Iran had officially announced its readiness to engage in negotiations and study the issues expertly, and this shows that the move was unprofessional and political which has definitely damaged the agency’s credibility,” Soltanieh stated.

He added, “The agency’s director issued such a report despite efforts and warnings by Russia and China and the Non-Aligned Movement member states which illustrates that he ignores the expectations of the majority of countries. Besides, providing the five nuclear weapons states with those documents a week before their release has set a dangerous precedent at the agency.”

“The move has also met with protests from the majority of the agency’s member states,” the Iranian ambassador said.

He added, “Over the past eight years, Iran has repeatedly proven that claims made by the United States are unfounded, and, after eight years, no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials to military purposes has been found. The international community will judge these allegations politically motivated.”

U.S. orders have discredited IAEA

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the U.S. orders have discredited the UN nuclear watchdog.

Ahmadinejad made the remarks in an address to a large gathering of people in the city of Shahr-e Kord, in the southern province of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province, on Wednesday.

“Why do you sacrifice the credibility of the IAEA to carry out the U.S. orders?”

“It will be in your interests if you be a friend of the Iranian nation,” Ahmadinejad stated.

Russia criticizes report

Russia on Tuesday criticized the report, saying it would dim hopes for dialogue with Tehran on its nuclear ambitions and suggesting it was meant to scuttle chances for a diplomatic solution, Reuters reported.

“We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the ‘sextet’ of international mediators and Tehran have begun to appear,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

According to Bloomberg, Russia also said that it suspects “political dishonesty” in the report.

Russia suspects the authors of some of the comments in the report of “political dishonesty and pursuing goals that have nothing to do with the task of eliminating the well-known concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program,” according to an e- mailed statement sent by the Moscow-based ministry before the report was released late Tuesday.

Allegations contained in the report about a Russian scientist date back 10 years and amount to “nothing new or sensational,” the ministry said.

China warns of turmoil over Iran

China warned on Wednesday against turmoil in the Middle East from action over Iran’s nuclear program but declined to comment on the possibility of new sanctions (on Iran), Reuters reported.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said that Beijing was “studying” the IAEA report, and repeated a call to resolve the issue peacefully through talks.

“I’ve already pointed out that China has consistently advocating using dialogue and cooperation to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue,” he stated during a daily news briefing when asked about the possibility of new unilateral U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Iran provides 20 answers to clarify ambiguities about its nuclear program

Iran's envoy to the IAEA Ali-Asghar SoltaniehIran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali-Asghar Soltanieh has offered the (Non-Aligned Movement) NAM critical information about Iran's nuclear program amid a publicity hype by the Western media over the latest IAEA report on Tehran's nuclear case.

In an extraordinary session of the NAM, held upon Iran's request on Tuesday, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh answered 20 critical questions about Tehran's nuclear program and a host of related issues.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano's latest report on Iran's nuclear activities was circulated among 35 members of the Board of Governors of the agency on Tuesday evening, almost 10 days ahead of the seasonal meeting of the board, due to take place in Vienna on November 17 and 18.

Amano has reportedly attached a 15-page annexation to his report, which focuses on the issue of Iran's alleged studies in the field of military nuclear activities.

According to some of the Western media speculations, the report makes three claims regarding Iran's nuclear activities, which purport that Tehran is pursuing a covert nuclear military program.

One of the claims has been made over satellite pictures of a steel container supposedly used for testing explosives that might be used to detonate fissile material.

The other claim revolves around Iran's hypothetical attempt to built computer models of a nuclear warhead, still another one conjectures that Tehran appears to have received foreign assistance in its experiments with nuclear material.

Soltanieh on Tuesday provided the NAM member states with detailed answers to 20 key questions about Iran's nuclear program.

Question 1: Has the IAEA detected, after 4000 days of most intensive inspection in the agency's history, even one gram of uranium being diverted for military purposes?

Response: No. Please study all of the reports by the agency's current and former director generals.

Question 2: With respect to nuclear activities and materials which are claimed to have not been declared until 2003, has the IAEA found out that they had been diverted towards military activities?

Response: No. All of these activities and materials were audited by the agency. Please study all the agency's reports to the Board of Governors between 2003 and 2004

Question 3: Was Iran ethically obliged to declare Natanz enrichment facility before 2003?

Response: No. Given that nuclear material had not been introduced into the facility until 2003, Iran was under no obligations to declare it. Particularly since Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements, as well as the additional Comprehensive Safeguards (CSA) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agreements.

Question 4: Was Iran legally obliged to declare the heavy water research reactor in Arak (IR40) before 2003?

Response: No. Iran was not under any obligation to declare it since no nuclear material had been introduced into it until 2003, particularly since Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements until 2003.

Question 5: Had Iran any obligation under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement to report Arak's heavy water production plant to the IAEA before 2003?

Response: No, because heavy water and its products are not covered by the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. Iran started implementing the Additional Protocol in 2003.

Question 6: Was Iran under any legal obligation until 2003 to declare uranium conversion Facilities (UCF)?

Response: No. Since no nuclear material had been introduced into the facility until 2003, Iran was not under any obligations to declare it, particularly given that Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements until 2003.

Question 7: Did Iran have any legal obligation to declare uranium mines including Gachin and Saghand mines?

Response: No, because Iran had not signed and implemented the Additional Protocol until 2003.

Question 8: Has the IAEA detected any nuclear material or activity including enrichment in Parchin and Lavizan-Shian, which are claimed to have been part of a nuclear weapons program after the UN agency carried out intensive inspections, including sampling and analyzing?

Response: No. The director general's press statement about Iran on March 6, 2006 reads, “On transparency, I think I mentioned in my report access to military sites, we have been given access to a number of military sites recently, to Parchin, Lavizan, Shian, to dual use equipment, to interview people. These are beyond the Additional Protocol, but they are essential for us to reconstruct the history of the program.”

On November 15, 2004, the director general reported that the agency had been provided access to the Lavizan-Shian military site where the agency took environmental samples. Finally, paragraph 102 of the director general (GOV/2004/83) says, “The vegetation and soil samples collected from the Lavizan-Shian site have been analyzed, and reveal no evidence of nuclear material.” Further information with respect to this issue is available in November 18, 2005 (GOV/2005/87) and February 27, 2006 (GOV/2006/15) documents.

Question 9: Did the IAEA, in its agreed Action Plan (INFOSIRC/711), announce that there is no other issue in addition to what was listed in 2007?

Response: Yes. The paragraph IV of the document (INFOSIRC/711) says that these modalities cover all the remaining issues, and the agency emphasizes that there will be no issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's previous nuclear programs and activities.

Question 10: Was the IAEA bound to submit the documents related to the “Alleged Studies” to the Islamic Republic based on its Action Plan?

Response: Yes. Paragraph III says, “Although the agency will submit the documents to the Islamic Republic, considering the Green Salt Project, experiments of high explosives and carrying missiles with returning abilities, it will also keep them with itself.

Question 11: Did the IAEA fulfill its obligations regarding the submitting of the evidence pertaining to the allegations to Iran?

Response: No. Please study the report by the former director general to the UN Board of Governors, where he correctly criticizes that the certain country that has provided the agency with the evidence on the allegations has not allowed the agency to submit the documents in question to Iran.

Question 12: Has the IAEA confirmed the authenticity of the content of the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: No. Please study the report by the former director general to the UN Board of Governors, where he correctly brought up the authentic problems with the documents. The director general also clearly explained that the nuclear materials and activities in the “Alleged Studies” are not relevant.

Question 13: What was Iran's obligation toward the document INFOSIRC/ 711 regarding the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: In Paragraph III of the document, which was discussed and agreed upon by the IAEA and Iran, and was to be approved by the Board of Governors specifies, “As a sign of the resolve to cooperate with the agency, based on all the related documents received, Iran will study the document and will inform the agency of its evaluation.”

Question 14: Did Iran, under the work plan, have any obligation to hold meetings, interviews or [allow] sampling regarding the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: No. As mentioned in Response 12, Iran was only obliged to inform of its evaluation. Iran has submitted its 117-page evaluation of the past three years. But the agency has not acted on its obligation to end the Action Plan. Accreting to Paragraph IV of the Action Plan, “The agency and Iran agreed that, following the implementation of the Action Plan and the agreed modalities for the negotiation of remaining issues, the implementation of the safeguards in Iran change to continue in the normal and conventional path.”

Notice: Instead of the Action Plan's conclusion, the secretariat introduced new allegations known as “Possible Military Aspects.” But in Paragraph IV of the Work Plan it is affirmed that “no issue has remained and there not any doubts about Iran's nuclear program and previous activities.”

Question 15: Has the Islamic Republic implemented the Additional Protocol?

Response: Yes. Please study the report by the former director general before 2006.

Question 16: Has Iran implemented the Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement?

Response: Yes. Please study the report by the former director general before 2006.

Question 17: Since when Iran has halted its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the Modified Code 3.1? Why?

Response: Iran's Majlis (parliament) voted to stop the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the Modified Code 3.1 (after two years and half) regarding the unfair reference of Iran's technical nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council in 2006. The important point is that the Additional Protocol is not a binding legal tool and the Modified Code 3.1 was merely a suggestion by the Board of Governors and is not part of the legal provisions of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA).

Question 18: Have all Iran's nuclear materials been measured, and are under the complete supervision of the safeguards and remained peaceful?

Response: Yes. Please study the annual Safeguards Implementation Report (SIR).

Question 19: Did Iran itself provide the possibility of unannounced inspections?

Response: Yes. The agency conducted more than 100 unannounced inspections in Iran. The advance-notice for some of them were issued only two hours before the inspection.

Question 20: Why does Iran deem the resolutions by the Board of Governors and the UN Security Council as illegal?

Response: A. In accordance with Article 12 C under the IAEA statute, if the inspectors notice any “non-compliance,” they should report the same to the director general and the later should report to the Board of Governors thereafter. Followingly, the Board will notify the report to the United Nations. None of these procedures have been applied with regard to Iran.

After three years elapsed since 2003, when the issue was raised at the Board of Governors, some members of the Board claimed that there had been “non-compliance” prior to 2003. Nonetheless, the director general did not use the legal term “non-compliance” and instead used the word “failure,” which has also been used with regard to the other countries, which implement the CSA. Based on this agreement, the issue will be considered as concluded after corrective measures are adopted. The former director general clearly confirmed in his report that Iran took all the corrective measures.

B. Article 12 C mentioned in the Board's resolutions speak of “recipient member states,” which have misused the nuclear materials delivered from the Agency. Iran has never received the nuclear materials mentioned in the relevant provisions under the Statute.

C. According to the Statute and the CSA, if the Agency discovers that the nuclear materials have been diverted to military purposes, it will notify the UN Security Council of the same. All the reports submitted by the incumbent and former dire generals so far contain no evidence of nuclear diversion.

D. Based on the CSA, if a member state does not allow the inspectors to enter the country and as a result the IAEA cannot conduct its verification activities, the Agency will notify the UN Security Council of the issue. All the reports by the director general since 2003 have explicitly announced that the Agency is able to continue its verification activities in Iran.

E. The resolutions by three EU member states against Iran from 2003 to 2006 have recognized Iran's move to suspend its uranium enrichment activities as a non-binding, voluntary and trust-building measure. Therefore, the Board of Governors 's resolutions which referred Iran's nuclear issue to the UN Security Council, after Iran decided to suspend its UCF activities voluntarily, are totally in contradiction with the Board's previous resolutions.

It should be mentioned that when the three EU member states proposed the anti-Iran resolutions at the Board of Governors in 2006 with political motives and in an attempt to involve the UN Security Council in an IAEA-related technical issue, enrichment activities in Natanz were still suspended voluntarily.

The last question from peace-seeking nations:

Based on the abovementioned facts, should we allow the IAEA, as the only international body tasked with promotion of peaceful use of nuclear energy for the achievement of peace and prosperity, to be manipulated as a tool by a number of countries which seek to turn the Agency into a watchdog utterly malleable into the hands of the UN Security Council and deprive the developing countries of their “absolute right” to use peaceful nuclear energy as stipulated in the IAEA Statute?

Deepening ties with the US

NST (12/11/11): SIDELINES Meeting between Najib and Obama in Bali to explore new areas of cooperation

Ties between Malaysia and the United States are set to move to a higher level with bilateral talks between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and US president Barack Obama in Bali next Friday on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit, diplomatic sources said.

"The one-on-one meeting is a major step forward for the bilateral trade and economic ties between the two major trading partners," one Malaysian diplomat said.

"Both leaders will explore new areas of cooperation."

Both Najib and Obama are due to attend the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) leaders' summit in Hawaii this weekend before heading to the Indonesian resort island for the East Asia Summit.

Two leading Malaysian and US think-tanks have recommended that Obama embark on a state visit to Malaysia next year to sustain and deepen ties between Kuala Lumpur and Washington, which they said were at "an all-time high".

Institute for Strategic and International Studies chief executive Datuk Dr Mahani Zainal Abidin and Ernest Bower, senior adviser and director of the Southeast Asia Programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, presented the recommendations to Najib on Thursday.

Other recommendations include:

Create a high-level bilateral strategic dialogue between the two governments, including a track two channel featuring policy leaders;

Expand military ties through enhanced integration, training and exchange programmes of senior officers;

Create a high-level competitiveness council featuring business leaders from both countries who would provide suggestions to enhance trade and investment;

Develop specific pathfinder initiatives to expand science and technology cooperation, including creating counterpart ties between leading Malaysian and US institutions;

Create a joint cyber security task force; and,

Invest in a Malaysia-US education foundation that would support the doubling of Malaysian students in the US by 2020 and expand the number of US students studying in Malaysia.