Clinton Says U.S. Will Not Set "Deadline" for Attacking Iran, but IAEA's Amano Escalates with New Accusations
September 10, 2012 • 10:33PM

In an interview with Bloomberg news on Sept. 10, following her trip to Vladivostok, Russia for the APEC meetings, Hillary Clinton asserted twice in a Bloomberg interview that negotiations with Iran in the P5+1 talks are continuing, and are "still, by far, the best approach to take at this time." The questions from Bloomberg to Clinton came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ramped up the pressure on the U.S. by making public—whether true or not—the claim that Israel and the U.S. are "in negotiations" about a "red line" where the U.S. will attack Iran if P5+1 negotiations are not successful.

A well-informed U.S. intelligence source reported that the public statements by Netanyahu were a new phase in the Israeli war party's attempt to go to war under orders from London. The source said that Clinton is not part of Obama's negotiating team on Iran, but what Clinton said reflects the Joint Chiefs' war-avoidance fight, as in Gen. Martin Dempsey's Aug. 30th statement in London that he doesn't want to be "complicit" in an Israeli attack on Iran.

Asked explicitly, "Is there a deadline?" for a military attack, Clinton replied, "We're not setting deadlines. We're watching very carefully about what they do, because it's always been more about their actions and their words."

Clinton added, the Israelis are "more anxious about a quick response because they feel that they're right in the bull's eye, so to speak, if this doesn't end up changing Iranian behavior and their nuclear weapons program. But we're convinced that we have more time to focus on these sanctions, to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good faith negotiation."

Meanwhile, British aligned assets are doing "everything" they can to make sure that the P5+1 talks are killed off as early as possible. In Vienna, where the week-long IAEA Board of Governors meeting is taking place, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano went back to the inflammatory stories of his November 2011 IAEA report to demand immediate access to the Parchin military site (a military site with over 1,000 buildings), because he claims that there is evidence that the site is being "sanitized." "The activities observed further strengthen our assessment that it is necessary to have access to the location at Parchin without further delay in order to obtain the required clarifications," Amano said — the same story he has been telling since January 2012. Amano's evidence is based on the infamous ISIS site run by former UN arms inspector David Albright. Albright's satellite photos show dangerous evidence such as a "pink tarp" covering some locations, "earth moving machinery," a "flow of water near a suspected high explosives building," and the "removal of a security fence."

At the same IAEA meetings, Iran made public a letter showing reasons why it rejects the IAEA demand to enter Parchin—which was already inspected since 2006, and nothing was found. Under agreements with the IAEA, neither Iran nor any other cooperating country are required to open up military sites to inspection. Iran is also demanding that the IAEA inform Iran of its "evidence" so that that once another inspection is done without finding any nuclear bomb-making, the matter can be ended.

In another war-mongering development, Anglo-Israeli mouthpiece David Makovsky, a top operative at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy (WINEP, an AIPAC spinoff), has a major article in the New Yorker called "The Silent Strike," which is a disgusting puff piece about Israeli Air Force's 2007 attack that demolished a site in Syria that was a so-called nuclear site. The Syria strike is one of Netanyahu's main propaganda points that a strike on Iran will not only be successful, and will not turn international opinion against Israel. Pure bunk.