United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

U.S. media all but blacked out reports of the dramatic confrontation between Iran and Israel over Israel's possession of nuclear weapons at the IAEA general conference in Vienna on Friday. -- Only wire service reports were available in U.S. media outlets.[1,2,3] -- About the meeting the New York Times had not a word to say, though "U.N. officials at a 148-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency said they had no memory of [Iran and Israel] ever engaging each other directly at previous meetings and said that development — and the unusually harsh tone of their statements — in part reflected Middle East tensions," according to AP. -- The Times did make France's supposed hawkishness on Iran the subject of an article that day, however.[4] ...

VIENNA -- Iran called for U.N. inspectors to be dispatched to verify whether Israel has nuclear weapons, in a heated showdown with the Jewish state at a meeting of the U.N. atomic agency Friday.

The face-off between the two nations came as Arab states condemned Israel for hiding an atomic arsenal, at a general conference of the 144-nation International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

Iranian envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told the conference that IAEA inspectors should be sent "to Israel to verify who is telling the truth."

Israel neither confirms nor denies it has nuclear weapons, but Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had hinted in a German television interview in December 2006 that Israel did in fact have the bomb.

Soltanieh's comments came after Israeli ambassador Israel Michaeli told the conference that Arab speakers' assertions that Olmert had said Israel had nuclear weapons were "lies." [Note: What Olmert said in an interview broadcast in Germany on Dec. 11, 2006, was: "[The Iranians] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia." Another version is: "[Iranians] are aspiring to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia." Israeli officialdom claims these are mistranslations.]

As for Arab condemnation of Israel for failing to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and accept IAEA safeguard inspections, Michaeli said: "Those who call for the elimination of Israel have no moral standing when they criticize Israeli policies aimed at defending Israel's very existence."

The 50-year-old IAEA's tradition of consensus on decisions has broken down over Middle East issues, with debate now highly politicized.

Arab states had Thursday pushed through a resolution clearly aimed at Israel, calling for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

But it had to go to a vote, even though Israel backs a nuclear weapons-free-zone (NWFZ) within the framework of a Middle East peace settlement.

In the end, the resolution was backed by 53 votes, with two against and 47 abstentions.

Some Western and non-aligned diplomats said Iran was agitating behind the scenes for a showdown over Israel to distract from its own civilian nuclear program, which is suspected of aiming to make nuclear weapons.

On Friday, Omani ambassador Salim Mohammed Al-Riyami presented the agenda item "Israeli nuclear capabilities and threat" saying there was concern over the "failure of the universality" of the NPT since Israel refuses to sign it.

"Israel still benefits from total freedom to develop its nuclear capacities," Al-Riyami told the IAEA, which uses safeguard agreements to monitor compliance with the treaty.

Al-Riyami had said in a document submitted along with the agenda item: "The policies of successive Israeli governments have obstructed the peace process in the Middle East and all initiatives to free the region . . . of weapons of mass destruction, and in particular of nuclear weapons, have failed."

The IAEA also debated a resolution on safeguards, with Western nations pushing through language on strengthening IAEA inspections.

But non-aligned nations which back Iran got the wording weakened somewhat, dropping for instance the word "universally" in a call for strengthened safeguards.

The resolution finally passed with 80 votes in favor, zero against, and 12 abstentions.

But the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, which meets separately from the general conference, makes decisions for the agency on how policy is implemented.

In the past at the IAEA's general conference, Arab states introduce a resolution on the Israeli nuclear threat but withdraw it in the face of strong Western opposition.

It is then postponed to the following year in return for Israel agreeing to the call for a NWFZ in the Middle East.

This arrangement fell apart for the first time at last year's general conference, when the NWFZ resolution was forced to a vote and adopted by a vote of 89-2.

IRAN AND ISRAEL IN BITTER CLASH AT U.N. WATCHDOG DEBATE
By Mark Heinrich and Karin Strohecker

VIENNA -- Iran demanded on Friday that U.N. inspectors visit Israel to investigate its nuclear capability while Israel accused Tehran of lying in a bitter debate at an assembly of the U.N. atomic watchdog.

The debate was sought by Arab and Islamic states after they shelved a resolution to brand Israel an atomic "threat" in the face of a likely Western maneuver to block a floor vote.

Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, though it has never confirmed or denied this. It is also one of just three states to shun the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, along with India and Pakistan.

Iran is under U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to halt a nuclear energy program feared by major powers to be a covert attempt to build atom bombs. Tehran's Islamist leaders have called for Israel's destruction.

At the annual assembly of the 149-member International Atomic Energy Agency, Arab countries and Iran railed at "persistent international double standards and silence" over Israeli nuclear exclusivity in the Middle East.

They repeatedly lambasted what they said was Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's admission of a nuclear arsenal in a German media interview last December. Israeli officials later denied Olmert said any such thing, tacitly or openly.

"Some speakers continue to lie about the statement of the Israeli prime minister, who did not say what they say he did," said Israel Michaeli, Israeli Ambassador to the IAEA.

"Those who call for the elimination of Israel have no moral standing when they criticize Israeli policies aimed at defending Israel's very existence."

Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh said: "This is strange, the Israeli prime minister acknowledged having nuclear weapons, now we hear that this is a lie.

"The only way for the international community to know the truth is to authorize the IAEA to send inspectors to Israel and verify the truth," Soltanieh said, his voice rising.

"We are seriously concerned about possession of nuclear weapons and non-accession to NPT. Non-aligned countries representing billions of people want an end put to this matter.

"We want the IAEA to have access to Israeli nuclear facilities and report to the international community at large."

There is no chance of such an IAEA move without an Israeli invitation, inconceivable given regional hostilities.

Michaeli told the week-long assembly earlier that while a nuclear arms-free zone in the Middle East was a commendable ideal, "we can have no illusions" while some Arab neighbors continue not to recognize Israel and Iran seeks its elimination.

Arab nations say a chronic imbalance of power in the Middle East caused by Israeli nuclear might breeds instability and spurs others to seek mass-destruction weaponry. Iran says its uranium enrichment program is for electricity, not bombs.

Middle East tensions have been fraying the traditional consensus culture of the 50-year-old, Vienna-based IAEA.

Closing proceedings later on Friday, member states approved a resolution to bolster IAEA safeguards, but only by a rare roll call vote forced by Arab states in protest at the measure's lack of reference to nuclear disarmament.

They resent what they regard as the slowness of nuclear weapons states to dismantle arsenals in keeping with NPT obligations, as well as Israel's cold shoulder to the treaty.

IAEA resolutions normally pass by consensus. The safeguards measure passed 80-0 with 12 abstentions, mainly by Arab nations.

VIENNA -- Israel accused Iran of lying Friday while Tehran challenged the international community to send U.N. inspectors to probe its arch-rival's nuclear capabilities, in a rare and unusually bitter direct confrontation.

U.N. officials at a 148-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency said they had no memory of the two hostile nations ever engaging each other directly at previous meetings and said that development -- and the unusually harsh tone of their statements -- in part reflected Middle East tensions.

The exchange came after Iran's chief delegate Ail Asghar Soltanieh -- like Arab delegates before him -- said that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had acknowledged last year that his country possessed nuclear weapons -- something Olmert says he never did.

Soltanieh also criticized "the continuous silence of the U.S. . . . vis-à-vis the atrocities, aggression, bloodshed, and violations of over 30 resolutions of the United Nations."

That, he said, is "shameful and (a) dark point in the history of the United Nations, and the IAEA, and the modern century at large."

In turn, Israeli delegate Israel Michaeli, alluding to claims that Olmert acknowledged Israel's nuclear weapons, said some previous speakers "continued to lie."

"Those who call for the elimination of Israel have no moral standing when they criticize Israeli policies aimed at defending Israel's very existence," Michaeli said.

Soltanieh then challenged the IAEA to send its inspectors into Israel "to verify who is telling the truth."

The harsh words came after an attempt by Iran and Arab nations to submit a resolution on "Israel Nuclear Capabilities and Threat" was blocked by the EU, the United States, and other Western nations.

While the conference has enforcement powers, it has been increasingly politicized over the past decade by the Middle East dispute and more recently by Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israel's doctrine of "nuclear ambiguity" -- never formally confirming or denying that it has such weapons -- is meant to scare potential enemies from considering an annihilating attack while denying them the rationale for developing their own nuclear deterrent.

Olmert caused a stir late last year with a remark he made to a German TV station, which was widely interpreted as confirming Israel has nuclear weapons. Olmert said he had been misunderstood.

On Thursday, the conference criticized Israel for refusing to put its nuclear program under international purview, with the United States alone in supporting the Jewish state.

Israel also voted against the resolution, while 53 nations backed it and 47 abstained. The remaining nations were absent for the highly unusual vote -- only the second in the 16 years the issue has been on the agenda of the IAEA conference.

On Friday, a resolution that in part sought to expand IAEA powers to prevent nuclear proliferation passed by a comfortable margin, though Iran was among the nonaligned states voting against it.

WASHINGTON -- The United States and France agree on increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday as the Bush administration played host to a meeting of major world powers to discuss another round of United Nations sanctions.

“I think it’s first important to note that we have set out a diplomatic path that includes negotiation as the preferred means by which to resolve this issue,” Ms. Rice said at a joint news conference with her French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner.

On Sunday, Mr. Kouchner kicked up a small diplomatic storm when he raised the possibility of war with Iran. He subsequently moderated his statements and dropped references to war. Ms. Rice noted that a diplomatic league of the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany had offered “a very, very good package of initiatives that Iran could take up if it wished to stop its enrichment and reprocessing activity.”

But she said, “We will seek further resolutions in the U.N. Security Council should Iran not take up the negotiating track.”

Toward that end, the Foreign Ministry political directors from Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia met at the State Department on Friday with R. Nicholas Burns, the United States under secretary of state for political affairs, to press ahead on a possible third Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran. After the meeting, Mr. Burns issued a statement on behalf of the six officials that “reaffirmed their commitment to maintain a dual-track approach on Iran’s nuclear activities.”

The discussions on Friday “were serious and constructive,” the statement said. The officials “had a detailed discussion of the elements of a new United Nations Security Council resolution, as well as possibilities of continued dialogue with Iran.”

Supporters of new sanctions were buoyed by a decision at the conclusion of Friday’s meeting to schedule another working session next week. That meeting is “to prepare recommendations” for a high-level conference next Friday, at which Ms. Rice and her five ministerial counterparts will discuss the potential for a new sanctions resolution.

Although senior officials from all six nations involved in the sanctions talks agreed on the urgency of preventing Iran from going nuclear, deep disagreements remained over the speed of imposing new sanctions, and on how deeply they should cut into the Iranian economy.

Russia and China are the most reluctant to move ahead, while the United States is pushing for faster action. Iranian officials say their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

In her public comments on Friday, Ms. Rice said that Paris and Washington were in consensus on Iran. “I think that there is essentially no difference in the way that we see the situation in Iran and what the international community must do, and we are going to work toward that, toward that end,” she said.

American efforts to push for more sanctions appear to have been aided by France’s new leadership under President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has taken a stance on Iran much closer to Washington’s hawkish policy views than that of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.

That is why special attention was being paid in Washington this week to the words chosen by Mr. Kouchner, the French foreign minister and co-founder of Doctors Without Borders, whose background in the humanitarian world made his remarks about the possibility of war all the more startling. He chose his words carefully on Friday, stressing the need for exploring all diplomatic avenues. Italy on Friday joined those urging more sanctions against Iran.

“There is still room for a strong initiative that can on one end put pressure through sanctions, even more severe sanctions, and on the other end really offer the possibility for negotiations and agreement,” Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema said in an interview on Italian state television, according to news service reports from Rome.