Dearest Servant, your peremptory manners, masked by a thin veil of pomposity, reflects exactly the kind of attitude that will, in short, get you nowhere. No need to appreciate something untrue, the Iranian delegation is presumably aware of everything that was mentioned by the British delegate in the latter post -- you might deem "lack of knowledge" as a corollary to my disagreement with your statements, but then again, that's your artifice for countering rhetoricals.
I do not have the time or energy to criticize your preposterous approach to the Iranian nuclear dilemma; however, I do feel the need to explain a thing or two about your post:
The foundation for the entirety of your first paragraph lies upon your understanding that the Iranian delegate explicitly and directly pointed out that
"the UN will not under any circumstance take its word for certain events." Would you please mind pin pointing exactly where was such idea was ever mentioned? What Iran explained was solely that our government will take no further consideration to an intelligence network founded upon Western principles, and yes, though it is true that the CIA has served as a catalyst to finding “out-of-record” information that does not ensure the righteousness of this American complex. You said the CIA provides research to some 70 countries, is Iran one of them? I didn’t think so.
Regardless, let me see if I got this straight: your response to the fact that your British government produced false documents as a pretext to favor the US-led incursion in Iraq is sustained by recent protests after the Iranian elections? Hmmm, what seems worse: lying to your country and sentencing innocents to death in a made-up war or having a few individuals question the results of a governmental election (which happens oh-so-very-often)? Should we draw a pros and cons list? I am safe to bet that more British soldiers have died during your so called War on Terror than have Iranian citizens been injured during the latest electoral dispute. Are you?
Mohammed El-Baradei, a common acquaintance of ours, is one that has confirmed the information as being completely reliable and cohesive with data collected over an extended period of time.
In regards to that, the Iranian delegate is much pleased to announce the following:
The UN's chief weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, said today he had seen "no credible evidence" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, rejecting British intelligence allegations that a weapons programme has been going on for at least four years. So much for an acquaintance...
Delegate, as I said, your biased perspective will lead to no solution. Don’t you think it is a bit unfortunate that you seem only able to read what you want, not what is there? For instance, there was no mentioning of the list of compliances, the 2007 Work Plan, or any slightly positive information about Iran’s government – coincidence? Hardly. Incongruous is your expectation that Iran will compromise with a country as presumptuous and prejudiced as the United Kingdom, and if I hadn’t made myself clear last time, allow me to now: we won’t. And about the "cooperation or confrontation" standpoint, as mentioned in a previous comment of mine, your threats are my entertainment…
American delegate, according to the latest report by the NPT watchdog, it was mentioned by the chief IAEA inspector that there is "no credible evidence" of Iranian nuclear weapons. There, it's a relief that the sanctions can be "frozen" now. Thank you.
Iranian Delegation