IAEA reported significant cooperation, but AP concludes that more UN sanctions should be imposed

Despite the fact that Iran's Plutonium-experiment issue (one of the few outstanding issues of Iran's nuclear activities) was recently resolved, and despite the fact that IAEA and Iran created a work-plan/timetable for to resolve the remaining issues, many mainstream media outlets try to downgrade such deals and convey the wrong impression. This is an example:

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday reported "significant" cooperation from Iran with its nuclear probe but noted it was still enriching uranium, prompting calls for stepped up U.N. sanctions from Washingon and its allies.

This paragraph implies that enriching uranium is illegal for Iran, and she should be punished for doing so, whereas enriching uranium (reactor level, of course) is a right to NPT signatories and many countries (including those without nuclear weapons) are currently doing so without any sanctions being imposed on them.

Why/How did AP draw such conclusion? From when enriching uranium prompts calls for UN sanctions?

Reporting both positives and negatives of a deal isn't bad at all, but doing so in a one-sided manner is not only unprofessional, but sometimes dangerous. Specially when United States threatens to attack Iran almost once a week on the basis of baseless allegations. (and yet it is Iran who is the suspect in threatening the world peace!)

Ahmadinejad in "60 Minutes"

Ahmadinejad in "60 Minutes"Frankly, I was not was sure whether to call this post "Ahmadinejad for dummies" or "Ahmadinejad in 60 Minutes".

Anyways, Mike Wallace interviews the Iranian President Ahmadinejad in "60 Minutes".

• part 1 (RealAudio video)
  
• part 2 (RealAudio video)
• part 3 (RealAudio video)

The interview is quite informative.

Visit my blog: http://nucleariran.blogspot.com

The two Romanian Oil Rigs in the Persian Gulf

Reportedly, Iran has attacked a Romanian Oil Rig. Although Iranian officials have denied attacking the rig, they have confirmed that Iran has prevented the rig's removal from the Kish Island.

Whereas the story, as it is mentioned in BBC-English, is very vague and poor in content, the BBC-Persian has a detailed coverage of the issue.

BBC-English coverage of the issue: Iran 'attacks Romanian oil rig'
BBC-Persian coverage of the issue: 'حمله نظامی ايران به دکل نفتی در خليج فارس'

I have compared the two articles and I've found the following discrepancies:

• One of the most important shortcoming in the BBC-English's story is that it lacks the Iranian point of view.
• It fails to mention that both rigs were involved in a legal dispute.
• It also fails to mention that both rigs were on a 3-year loan to Iran, under a contract which was unilaterally rescinded by the Romanian company.
• It also fails to mention that, by law, the rigs should have stayed in the Persian Gulf until the dispute was resolved.
  
• And that the other rig was covertly taken out of Iran 8 days before the incident.

I don't know why BBC-English should have such a poor report on this. And this has been intentional.

A very important issue, not discussed in any of the two, is whether or not there was any attack. And if there was, whether or not there were any damages/casualties?