There is quite a diplomatic uproar about some Iranians storming the British embassy in Tehran.

What did Mr. Cameron expect when Britain cut off the Iranian central bank from all business in Britain? That was an act of economic warfare and a response was certain.

And where was he, the U.S. and the UN with their "extremely serious" proclamations when earlier this year the Libyan embassies in Stockholm and Manila were stormed by a mob?

Oh, that was different? How?

Visa and Mastercard are the only major powers in the electronic payment processing market. The form a duopoly, do not seriously compete and can thereby extract an ever increasing price from their customers.

Russia and Pakistan are now a duopoly in logistics for troops in Afghanistan and they are using it to increases the price the U.S. has to pay to stay there:

Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn't seriously consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for Europe, Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday.
…
If NATO doesn't give a serious response, "we have to address matters in relations in other areas," Russian news services reported Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO, as saying. He added that Russia's cooperation on Afghanistan may be an area for review, the news services reported.

The U.S. "missile defense" in Europe never made sense as protection against Iranian weapons. It only makes sense if it is planed to provide capabilities against Russia's strategic weapons.

The Russians of course assume that and their suspicion increased when the U.S. denied them any real cooperation on the issue. Even more serious:

Moscow is seeking written, legally-binding guarantees that the shield will not be directed against it but Washington has refused to put its verbal assurances in writing.

There are other points on which Russia has reason to use its capability to block U.S. logistics. U.S. meddling in Central Asia, the planned attack on Syria and drug trafficking from Afghanistan are part of that list.

Russia upping the price for further cooperation on Afghanistan helps Pakistan and will allow it to also further increase its own price for again allowing transport through its country. China is also supportive of Pakistan's position:

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said Monday that China will consistently support Pakistan's efforts in safeguarding national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

With Pakistan closing down the logistics and Russia expecting serious concessions the only way left to supply troops in Afghanistan is through the Caspian route from the Georgian port Poti to Baku in Azerbaijan, from there by ferry across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan on to Uzbekistan and finally to Afghanistan. It is the most expensive route and it has serious capacity constrains.

The U.S. has maneuvered itself into a really bad position in Afghanistan. It constantly alienates the other major powers but expects them to help on the issue. They have no reason to do so. They just watch and wait and when there inevitably opens a chance to press their concerns or to increase their profits they will, like Russia now, use it.

With neither the Taliban nor Pakistan talking part in the upcoming Bonn conference on Afghanistan there is no political solution in sight and the costs for the U.S. holding out there will day by day increase further. It is time for a serious change in strategy and to give up on Afghanistan. Washington still seems to be unwilling to contemplate that.

One of the measures the Pakistanis took after the deadly weekend U.S. bombing of their outpost was the immediate closure of the Shamsi airstrip in Baluchistan used by the CIA to launch drone attacks.

That airstrip was originally built with money from the United Emirates and used for the Emirs' hunting pleasure vacations. After 2001 it was turned over to the U.S. which used it for drone operations.

The U.S. is still trying to keep it that way:

President Asif Ali Zardari has rejected a request by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to let United States continue using the Shamsi air base until the completion of the Nato attack probe […]

The request was made by the foreign minister of the UAE, during a meeting with the President in Islamabad.
…
The Shamsi air base, had originally been leased to the UAE, and later its control was handed over to the US as the war on terror was launched in Afghanistan.

Interesting here is how the U.S. is using one of its colonial regimes in the Middle East to push its policies in a country outside of the region.

It obviously ordered the UAE government to go to Pakistan and to ask for continued access to the base. By following through on that request those UAE regents showed that they have no independent policy, no real pride and no concern for their fellows in Pakistan.

If anyone ever doubted that those Middle East rulers the U.S. calls "friends" are actually little more than slaves this should settle it.

All they have is money. Independence they have not.

Memogate and the U.S. attack on the Pakistani border post that killed 28 Pakistani soldier increases the chance of Imran Khan's Tehrik-e-Insaaf (Movement for Justice) party to win the next Pakistani election. Kahn is against the U.S. Pakistan alliance. It also increases the risk of a coup by some lower rank officers in Pakistan.

This is all well known by the U.S. and that is why there is something with the deadly attack which I do not get:

A NATO spokesman, Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, offered details suggesting that allied and Afghan troops operating near the border came under fire from unknown enemies and summoned coalition warplanes for help.

“In the early night hours of this morning, a force consisting of Afghan forces and coalition forces, in the eastern border area where the Durand Line is not always 100 percent clear, got involved in a firefight,” General Jacobson said […]

“Air force was called in into this activity,” he said, “and we have to look into this situation of what actually happened on the ground.”

The Pakistani border post that was attacked is on a high point some 1.5 miles within Pakistani territory. The actual border line is not always clear, there are no markings, and at 2:00am in the middle of the night no patrol in the area will be able to tell on which side of the border it really is.

So why are the U.S. and Afghan forces patrolling there at all?

Why not pull back the troops like five miles away from the border and establish the surveillance and defense line against infiltrations from Pakistan there? Except where the roads cross the border there is nothing of value or interest in the immediate border area. A pull back would allow for full use of indirect weapons (mortar, planes etc) against any infiltrating enemy while being sure that no Pakistani land and troops will get hurt in such a response.

Declare a no man's land and free fire zone in the buffer on the Afghan side and have at it. Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do if one wants to avoid such incidence with Pakistan?

Then again – maybe such incidents are intended. But for what purpose?

This NYT piece on U.S. troops leaving Iraq is somewhat funny: U.S. Uses an Insurgent Attack to Send a Message to Iraqis

The statement suggested such rocket attacks had been staged for propaganda purposes to create the impression that the Americans are fleeing under fire after more than eight years of war.

“Terrorists groups are conducting attacks against American forces in order to create a false idea that they have forced us to leave,” the statement said.

So that "impression" is not the reality? What then? U.S. troops are leaving Iraq in parade formations, while being offered sweets and getting showered with flowers?

Further down:

The military has kept the departure timeline a secret, and American soldiers sometimes leave without notice from the bases they share with the Iraqi Army.

At one base in Ramadi, Iraqi and American officers held a low-key farewell party but left the departure time unstated. Iraqi soldiers discovered one morning the Americans had driven away in the middle of the night. “We just woke up and they were gone,” Col. Hisham Abid Fayadh said.

Sneaking away in the dark certainly "sends a message to Iraqis". Though it is probably not the one the U.S. would like to send. But I am quite sure it is well understood. Everywhere.

Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam recently wrote an odd story on an allegedly successful plot by the Israeli Army Intelligence against Hizbullah. The Israelis, according to Richard's story, let a bobbytrapped drone drop into south Lebanon where Hizbullah then took it to a big arms cache. The Israelis, days later, then blew up that drone and a huge explosion followed. His piece was widely cited in the Israeli media.

I believe that the story, which was provided to Richard by an unnamed Israeli source, is not true but either simply a gone-wild phantasy or an Israeli information operation probably to let the IDF intelligence shine in a good light and Hizbullah in a bad one.

Let's trace down the story which was actually two stories before Richard's secret source put them together into one.

On Saturday November 19 the Wall Street Journal reported:

Cont. reading: On Silverstein’s Implausible Drone Explosion Story

Your news & views …

The neocon editors of the Washington Post call for regime change in Iran:

By now it should be obvious that only regime change will stop the Iranian nuclear program. That means, at a minimum, the departure of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeatedly blocked efforts by other Iranian leaders to talk to the West. Sanctions that stop Iran from exporting oil and importing gasoline could deal a decisive blow to his dictatorship, which already faced an Arab Spring-like popular revolt two years ago. By holding back on such measures, the Obama administration merely makes it more likely that drastic action, such as a military attack, eventually will be taken by Israel, or forced on the United States.

"Forced on the United States?" That poor small country is getting forced by the gigantic Iran to kill Iranians?

Unfortunately these neocon idiots are not alone.

Jasmin Ramsey reports on yesterday's republican candidate exhibition of foreign policy incompetence:

All candidates accepted a question from the Heritage Foundation that cited Ehud Barak’s claim that Iran is “less than a year away” from creating a nuclear weapon and apart from congressman Ron Paul, no one took issue with the U.S. supporting “regime change” or using military force against the country.

"Regime change" means a big war. There is no other way to achieve that. And in case you plan to vote against that forget about it. The democrats are no different. Obama is imposing more sanctions against Iran which will fail as they always do. These sanctions are just designed to fail and will then "necessitate" regime change.

Cont. reading: Calls for “Regime Change” in Iran

Just to note what's happening in Egypt now.

• After a lot of fighting today mostly in the sidestreets Tahrir is again full of people, just like in the first part of this revolution
• Street fights in Alexandria – massive, massive use of teargas (CR or CS)
• A general was reported to have defected to the protesters (rank not confirmed)
• The Muslim Brotherhood did not take part today – that will likely cost them some votes
• The top military announced to form a "national salvation government" (this will not be enough)
• Head of SCAF Tantawi just live on TV – sounds like Mubarak a week before he had to go ( – still wants sham parliamentary elections in six days (impossible) – "hidden forces" are the cause of the trouble – will never stand against the wishes of the people – will never kill a single of our people (well, then who did?) – no intention to keep power (but nothing on the "constitutional principles" that would keep the military uncontrolled)
• Crowed is booing in Tahrir against Tantawi: "go! go!" (he is done)

It seems that the plans the U.S. had for Egypt as a military managed "democracy" are out of the window. What will they come up with next?

There is a very good immediate reason why the Egyptians have taken to the street again. This not only in Cairo but also in the governorates of Suez, Alexandria, Ismailia, Assiut and Qena.

Last week the military demanded that its supremacy over the civilian government shall be enshrined in a new constitution and made permanent. Thereby creating a military dictatorship with a democratic facade.

But reading the "western" mainstream media one will not learn about the protests' reason at all. The real, immediate reason of these protests does not exist in those reports. Instead the protesters are depicted as unreasonable delaying the upcoming sham elections.

As Al Arabiya wrote on Friday:

The rally was called to protest a document floated by the government which declares the military the guardian of “constitutional legitimacy,” suggesting the armed forces could have the final word on major policies even after a new president is elected. The document, which includes guiding principles for Egypt's new constitution, also introduces clauses that would shield it from civilian oversight.

Neither the Washington Post, nor the LA Times mention that attempt to keep the military supreme in their write ups about the protests. There is nothing about it in the Guardian, the Associated Press, the Independent and the Telegraph reporting. The only notable exception I find is a blog post by Tony Karon at the Time website.

The Wall Street Journal at least mentions the real issue, if only in a half-sentence down in the twentieth of thirty two paragraphs:

The military, meanwhile, has reneged on pledges of a speedy handover of power to civilian rule and tried to dictate a set of constitutional principles that would preserve sweeping powers for the military in any future government.

It is not only that the media do not write about the attempt of the military to stay in power forever, they even try make the military dictate look reasonable. The worst offender here is the New York Times which prominently sets out the false claim, without any factual support, that:

Liberals regarded [the military] as a hedge against Islamist power.

But further down to the end of the piece various liberal groups are quoted demanding, as they always did, exactly the opposite, the end of the military rule:

Some liberal groups, led by the former diplomat and presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei, called for the military council to give up power immediately to a civilian “government of national rescue.” Other liberals said they sought only the replacement of the current cabinet with a new civilian team with more power to make decisions independently of the council.

But the Times also gives the real reason why there is nothing in the "western" media explaining the protests against a permanent military dictatorship:

[T]he Obama administration considered [the military] a partner that it hoped would help secure American interests.

You see – it is not about the interests of the Egyptians at all. American interests are above the will of the Egyptian people therefore the military assault on their will and interests, to be free of permanent military rule, will not be mentioned at all.

The people in the "west" are not supposed to know what the revolution in Egypt really is about. The few who read The Arabist, The National, Al-Akhbar or Al Jazeera will learn what is happening in Egypt. Those who stick to the "western" mainstream media will not.

It is now the third day of renewed intense street battles around Tahrir Square and in other places in Egypt. Some 40 people have been killed so far and thousands wounded.

The people want their revolution back. The immediate reason for these renewed protest is a paper that was somehow published last week:

The rally was called to protest a document floated by the government which declares the military the guardian of “constitutional legitimacy,” suggesting the armed forces could have the final word on major policies even after a new president is elected. The document, which includes guiding principles for Egypt's new constitution, also introduces clauses that would shield it from civilian oversight.

Most of Egypt’s pro-democracy groups object to the document, calling it an attempt to perpetuate military rule past the post-Mubarak transitional period which is supposed to end with the election of a new parliament and a new president.

A democracy with the military as a guardian of “constitutional legitimacy" would not be a democracy at all. It would be military dictatorship with a pseudo-democratic face.

To keep it like that would be very much in the U.S. interest. The personal well being of the generals in the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) depends on the yearly U.S. stipend of $1.5 billion and that will only flow if Egypt does what Israel wants it to do.

After the ousting of Mubarak the military first gave in to public demand and said it would open the Rafah crossing to Gaza. But it did not do so. After the foreign minister Nabil el-Araby, seated by the military, united the Palestinian factions against Israel's will, the military moved him away to head the Arab League. On these and other issues the military did not adhere to the will of the Egyptian people, it adhered to the will of the U.S. government.

A really democratic Egypt would elect a government responsible to the will of its people and such a government would not do what Israel wants. The people in Tahrir can therefore not hope for any support or help from the U.S. or any other "western" government. A real democracy in Egypt or any other Arab country is about the last thing the U.S. wants.

The people will have to fight this out. The chances are slim but it is unlikely that the military will risk to send any troops, aside from the military police, into the street. The allegiance of the rank and file soldier to the generals is dubious as several defection during the last protests and the Mubarak ouster have shown. If the pressure from the street and the workers (the military forbid strikes and took other worker rights) becomes big enough the SCAF will have to give in and will have to hand over its current power to a civilian government.

Only then can the process to a genuine democracy in Egypt begin.

The currently “most emailed story” at the Washington Post site is Iran may have sent Libya shells for chemical weapons.

May, may, may?

The 1.500 words piece is clearly written to suggest some Iranian “Weapon of Mass Destruction” business even though, as a not-so-casual read will find, there is nothing to it. Just many mays, vague anonymous sources and innuendo added to each other.

The picture above the article shows unmarked empty gas canisters with handles, not artillery shells.

In the second picture in the gallery accompanying the article a container marked “Hydroxyde de Sodium” somewhere in Libya is shown. It is describe as:

Chemical containers are seen in an unguarded storage facility in the desert, about 60 miles south of Sirte, Libya.

But “hydroxyde de sodium” is just caustic soda which:

is used in many industries, mostly as a strong chemical base in the manufacture of pulp and paper, textiles, drinking water, soaps and detergents and as a drain cleaner. Worldwide production in 2004 was approximately 60 million tonnes, …”

This has, unlike the WaPo placement of the pictures suggests, nothing to do with chemical weapons.

The article begins:

The Obama administration is investigating whether Iran supplied the Libyan government of Moammar Gaddafi with hundreds of special artillery shells for chemical weapons that Libya kept secret for decades, U.S. officials said.

The shells, which Libya filled with highly toxic mustard agent, were uncovered in recent weeks by revolutionary fighters at two sites in central Libya. Both are under heavy guard and round-the-clock surveillance by drones, U.S. and Libyan officials said.

So the whole issues is about empty artillery shells found somewhere in Libya (the piece does not even say where), which may have come from Iran, decades ago (under the U.S. stooge Shah?).

How does such a find, even when confirmed, allow for the following passages:

A U.S. official with access to classified information confirmed that there were “serious concerns” that Iran had provided the shells, albeit some years ago. […] Confirmed evidence of Iran’s provision of the specialized shells may exacerbate international tensions over the country’s alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

Why should decades old empty artillery shells in Libya “exacerbate international tensions” about an alleged nuclear program in Iran?

In an unclassified report to Congress this year, the U.S. director of national intelligence said that “Iran maintains the capability to produce chemical warfare agents … [and] is capable of weaponizing CW agents in a variety of delivery systems.” Those systems include artillery shells, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Any school chemistry lab has the “capability to produce chemical warfare agents” and the means to deliver those. Again – what has this to do with decades old empty artillery shells in the Libyan desert? Is this journalism?

The whole piece is just constructed anti-Iran propaganda. Not astonishingly it was co-written by Joby Warrick, the WaPo’s Judith Miller equivalent, who also recently spread the false “Soviet nuclear scientist” stories about an expert in nanodiamond production who once worked in Iran.

What gives me some hope is that the comments to this latest WaPo smear piece seem to recognize it for what it is. They don’t buy it but call it out as pure propaganda without any journalistic value.

Starting in 2008 the U.S. build an alternative logistic route into Afghanistan. Instead of trucks traversing Pakistan the Northern Distribution Network would depend on the railway system of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and other former Soviet Union states.

That railway system was recently extended into Afghanistan with the termination point in Mazar-e-Sharif. It is overall a fragile and long route depending on old infrastructure in a dubious maintenance state. In Uzbekistan trains take priority only when various bribes get paid to the right people.

Still the plans are to in future route 75% of all land based logistics through the NDS to become less dependent on Pakistan. This again could eventually open options to put more political or military pressure on Pakistan.

It is obvious that the situation would make the NDS a target for several constituencies and now the inevitable happened:

Uzbekistan media have reported an explosion on a railway line on the Central Asian nation’s border with Afghanistan.

The rail route lies on a distribution network used for the supply of goods to United States troops serving in Afghanistan, but the cause of the blast was unclear.
…
Privately operated Uzmetronom news site, based in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, said investigators are probing a possible terrorist link.

A bit more, though still murky information via Eurasianet:

There is very little information about this so far, but there hasn't been a terror attack in Uzbekistan for several years. And the fact that it's so near to Termez, the hub of the U.S.'s Northern Distribution Network that carries military cargo through Central Asia to Afghanistan, has to have people worrying in Tashkent and the Pentagon.
…
A map on the Ferghana News site shows where Galaba and Amu Zang are, and it is in fact on a line that does coincide with the NDN. And a press release on the Russian Railways site (in Russian) says that service on the line is disrupted because of the "destruction of the supports of the railway bridge."

The incident happened on Wednesday and was only made public today. With a bridge down the repair may take some time.

It is easy to blame "terrorists" for the incident. But there are many groups who could have a possible interests here.

Cont. reading: A New Attack On U.S. Afghanistan Logistics

bigger

"Lt. John Pike of UC Davis defends himself against an ongoing attack by radical left wing students camouflaged with hoods."

Or whatever the media will make out of this …

But as one can see at the end of the video the occupiers are winning this match.

On the current Washington Post “World” page we find a piece by David Albright’s stenographer Joby Warrick headlined: IAEA resolution to sharply criticize Iran for nuclear efforts.

First please notice how the headline on the “World page” and in the URL is factually false. The piece isn’t about a UN resolution but about an IAEA board of governors resolution and te IAEA isn’t even a UN organization. When one clicks through to the story the headline of the story (though not its URL) is changed to “IAEA …”.

But the real curious issue is that on the very same “World” page, a bit down, we find the largely same though longer story written by the Associated Press with the headline: APNewsBreak: Russia, West agree on Iran text moderately critical of Tehran’s nuke program.

So does the resolution “sharply” criticize or is it only “moderately” critical? As it was toned down to accommodate China and Russia the second interpretation is definitely the more correct on.

But Warrick’s task is to hype the “Iranian nuclear threat” just like Judith Miller once hyped “Iraq’s WMD”. As there are less facts in his shorter piece than in the original AP article he seemingly copied from that likely explains why he ended up with an incorrect appraisement and the AP writers with a correct one.

"Western" media are pushing the tale of Syrian Army defectors attacking Syrian security forces. Note that the only sources for these tales are "activists" in London and elsewhere.

I do not doubt that there are attacks on Syrian forces. I sincerely doubt that these are done by army defectors. Notice that these attacks started as early as April, more than half a year ago, at a time when no "western" media, despite the public evidence, wrote of armed rebellion at all, just of "peaceful protesters". Only now are media reporting of attacks by armed groups but these reports are either fake or come without backing from any independent source:

Deserters from the Syrian Army reportedly carried out attacks against the offices of the Syrian ruling Baath party in northwestern Syria on Thursday, a day after they claimed an assault on an intelligence base that Russia, Syria’s closest ally, said was bringing the country closer to civil war.

The Syrian government did not mention either attack, which were reported by activists, citing the accounts of local residents, and their scale and effectiveness was not clear.

There has been not one bit of evidence that those who attack the Syrian forces are really army defectors. Any real army defectors would be likely to leave with heavier weapons and would be able to bring up a more organized challenges than isolated road ambushes and a few shots against official buildings.

I find it much more likely that the attacks, if they happened at all, were committed by Sunni Syrians loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood or to the exiled former Baath functionaries Abdul Halim Khaddam and Rifaat al-Assad and under the tutelage of Qatari or Jordanian special forces. This of course with U.S. and Israeli support.

It increases the chance for a successful rebellion but I still regard that chance as quite small.

Busy traveling, so just a short one:

On the IAEA report on Iran:

Just as I did the Center for Strategic and International Studies criticizes the hype the Washington Post tried to make with the scary "R265 generator". It's all just warmed up old stuff.

As predicted here the IAEA's board of governors will not refer Iran to the UN for more sanctions.

Robert Kelley, a former IAEA inspector and nuclear scientist was interviewed on the Real News Network (part 1, 2.)

At around seven minutes into part 1 he rips up the IAEA allegation that the alleged explosion chamber it found on a satellite picture is useful for developing anything nuclear. The IAEA says the chamber is for blowing up up to 70 kg of explosives while Kelley says a nuclear bomb would use much more explosives and the chamber would not be useful for testing any part of that. He also says that the use of a chamber for the IAEA alleged "hydrodynamic studies" on explosion pressure waves would be a seriously bad idea. You would want to do those outside a pressure holding chamber not in an enclosed environment. He calls all the talk about the explosion chamber "highly misleading". Many things in the IAEA report are, according to Kelley, "just plain wrong".

On #OWS:

There will be some Occupy Wall Street action later today when people will demonstrate, or try to, at bridges in NYC and Washington. In case you can not join your local occupation, facts from the ground in NYC and elsewhere are available via live streams from The Other 99, The Other 99 Channel 2 and at the GlobalRevolution.tv.

The police is clearing the Zuccotti Park in New York and other "occupied" places in other cities. A Ustream is here.

Judging from my personal experience with comparable movements this is likely to increase participation in the #QWS movement. The movement has already succeeded in moving the Overton window on various issues. There is now more discussion about banker fraud, unwarranted high CEO payments and general income inequality in the main stream media than has been for years.

The next steps should include coordinated weekly demonstrations all over the U.S. where people who do not have time to take part in occupations can show their solidarity with the movements aims.

What other steps do you suggest to keep #OWS growing and to increase its efficiency?

UPDATED below:

As I predicted in The IAEA Report: A Dud With Little Consequences For Iran there will be little international follow on to it.

There is simply nothing new in the report and it is written so badly with innuendo replacing facts that a former IAEA inspector even calls it “unprofessional“. Internationally David Albright’s frantic efforts to reinstate its credibility after I seriously damaged it will fail.

So while the tail continues to wag (Israel Lobbies Discreetly for More Sanctions After U.N. Report on Iran) the dog (Obama Seeks Agreement With Russia, China on Iran) over this, no international action will follow:

China’s Foreign Ministry joined Russia Thursday in warning Western countries that additional pressure on Iran would not solve the nuclear stand-off.
…
“We, as always, believe that dialogue and cooperation are the only effective approaches for properly resolving the Iran nuclear issue,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said.

“Imposing pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally resolve the issue,” he added.

The IAEA and Amano are in deep trouble as the Non Aligned Movement and especially India are pissed off with them over the report:

Distancing itself from IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano’s report on Iran and its pursuit of a nuclear programme, India today associated itself with a statement by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which criticised the language used in the IAEA chief’s report.
…
While India has been part of all NAM statements in the past, this time it is quite strongly-worded and has raised concerns on procedures followed by the IAEA. New Delhi has maintained that Tehran has an “inalienable right” to use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes but needs to abide by “international rules and obligations”.

There is no way the U.S. will get a new IAEA government board reference of Iran to the UN and additional UN sanction.

Amano can forget about a reelection when his term expires. The U.S. invested a lot to get him installed. Abusing the IAEA with this blatantly political report now fires back big time.

UPDATE (Nov 15 9:50am EST): I have to eat craw on this one. I only now realized that the India Express NAM piece is from 2010. There is not yet a NAM statement on the recent IAEA report I can find. Anyway – the old piece shows the mood the NAM had back then with regards to the IAEA. It is unlikely that it since changed to the IAEA’s favor.

Daniel Joyner is Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law. In an Op-ed at Jurist Forum he writes on the recent IAEA report on Iran: Iran's Nuclear Program and the Legal Mandate of the IAEA:

This report is legally problematic in a number of ways.

Firstly and most fundamentally, the IAEA simply has no legal mandate to produce such a report on activities being carried on within an IAEA member state concerning items and technologies that may be related to the development of a nuclear explosive device, but that are not directly related to fissionable materials or associated facilities.
…
Since the IAEA is acting outside of its legal authority in this section of the report, it does not have a legal standard to apply to its conclusions regarding possible nuclear weapons related activities not involving fissile material. […] In short, as the ancient legal maxim states, there can be no illegality where there is no law. The IAEA is simply "concerned."

Why they are concerned is itself a matter of curiosity. There is no knowledge or technical ability related to nuclear weapons detailed in this report, and allegedly possessed by Iran, which other technologically advanced non-nuclear-weapon states like Japan or Germany do not possess. These are specialized bodies of knowledge and technical capabilities, to be sure, but they are well within the knowledge base and technical abilities of these advanced industrial states.
…
Since there is no evidence presented in this new report by the IAEA Director General that Iran has physically constructed a nuclear explosive device or any of its components, one can conclude that the Director General's concern expressed in this report cannot be justified as being based upon a breach of a rule of international law prohibiting the activities outlined in the IAEA report. Such a rule exists neither in Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA, or in the NPT. Rather, the reason for the IAEA's and the UN Security Council's attention to Iran can only be based on other factors, primarily including the determination of the US and other states that Iran is a threat to Israel, the region and international peace and security generally.
…
[The IAEA's] track record in devoting so much critical attention to Iran over the past nine years, and not to other non-nuclear-weapon states who have for decades engaged in precisely the same production of knowledge and capabilities, through the same processes, has convinced both Iran and the other members of the Non-Aligned Movement (comprising the vast majority of states in the world) that the IAEA has thereby undermined its independence and objectivity as a technical monitoring and verification body. Instead, they believe, it has become a politicized instrument of the foreign policy goals of the US and other Western states. The agency's overreaching in its new report is simply the most recent evidence of this fact.

With regard to "to other non-nuclear-weapon states who have for decades engaged in precisely the same production of knowledge and capabilities, through the same processes" Joyner mentions, let us just point to two of them (there are many more).

From the Wall Street Journal, October 28 2011: In Japan, Provocative Case for Staying Nuclear

Many of Japan's political and intellectual leaders remain committed to nuclear power even as Japanese public opinion has turned sharply against it. One argument in favor rarely gets a public airing: Japan needs to maintain its technical ability to make nuclear bombs.
…
"I don't think Japan needs to possess nuclear weapons, but it's important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time," Shigeru Ishiba, a former defense minister, said in an interview in a recent edition of Sapio, a right-leaning twice-monthly magazine.

"It's a tacit nuclear deterrent," added Mr. Ishiba, an influential parliament member who made similar remarks on a prime time television news show in August while serving as policy chief of Japan's main opposition party.

This on Brazil from a HufPo piece datelined September 25 2009: Jose Alencar, Brazil VP, Says Country Should Build Nuclear Arms

Cont. reading: Joyner: IAEA Exceeds Its Mandate – Biased Because Of Israel