Anti-Iran rhetoric raises UN concerns

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.
ADVERTISEMENT

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran this month of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program. She said there is no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the IAEA about its intentions.

Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if Iran were found to be working toward developing a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration announced harsh penalties against the Iranian military and state-owned banking systems in hopes of raising pressure on the world financial system to cut ties with Tehran.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_re_us/us_iran

[Amonester]

1. The IAEA is right. In other words: "Where is Iran's TEST site?"

If it was true that Iran was seeking to "make" ONE nuke (to begin with), wouldn't they "have to" TEST it somewhere ("TEST it" in the same way North Korea tested theirs)?

If they would test it... (even if such "first" test failed...), wouldn't all the "military-secret space satellites" up there "detect" it, since I heard they can "spot a dime on a sidewalk" if they want to... It seems to me they would "spot a test site" anytime they'd want to.

Is there any "sign" they "did spot" such a "test site" anywhere in Iran yet? No. Because there ain't any.

But I am quite sure the Military Industrial Complex DO KNOW the exact location of the smallest "ground-hole full of oil" in all of Iran since a VERY LONG time ago...

[maseman]

2. I still think

that this isn't about war with Iran but a war of words to drive up the price of oil. Let's remember where the Bush Administration has their primary interestes. OIL! Whenever they through around this language they become richer. No hurricanes for two years? Uh Oh. Better through around some powerful war words to make up for the price of oil going down. $90+ per barrel. Seems to be working.

[seafan]

3. But, but..... but.... "US denies being on warpath with Iran"

US denies being on warpath with Iran, October 27, 2007


Someone's lying again.

[struggle4progress]

4. Head of UN nuclear agency calls on Bush to ease Iran rhetoric (IHT)

By Brian Knowlton
Published: October 28, 2007

WASHINGTON: Mohamad ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, urged the Bush administration Sunday to soften its rhetoric against Tehran, even as a prominent Democratic senator said he feared that U.S. military action was drawing "precariously close."

The comments by ElBaradei and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, came in response to the administration's recent tough talk, including President George W. Bush's warning of "World War III" if Tehran obtained nuclear arms, and Vice President Dick Cheney's caution of "serious consequences" for Iran.

"We cannot add fuel to the fire," ElBaradei said on CNN. "I would hope we would stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue." ...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/28/america/policy.php

[struggle4progress]

5. Israel Had `No Business' Bombing Syria, UN Nuclear Chief Says (Bloomberg)

By Lorraine Woellert

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Israel had ``no business'' bombing Syria and lacks ``any evidence at all'' that its target was a nuclear facility, the head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog group, called the Sept. 6 raid ``very distressful'' and a violation of UN rules that require member nations to alert investigators if there is evidence of nuclear activity.

``To bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution,'' ElBaradei said on CNN's ``Late Edition'' program ...

Syrian officials told ElBaradei that the cluster of buildings targeted by the Israeli air force was a ``military facility,'' and has ``nothing to do with nuclear,'' the IAEA chief said ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axcjEHGDc9fg&refer=home

[leftchick]

6. ElBaradei: UN has no evidence Iran is making nuclear weapons

Source: Daily Star

The head of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reiterated on Sunday that he had no evidence Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric. "I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now," Mohamed ElBaradei told CNN.

"Even if Iran were to be working on a nuclear weapon ... they are at least a few years from having such a weapon," he added, citing assessments by US officials themselves.

"At this stage we need to continue to work through creative diplomacy ... as I don't see any other solution than diplomacy and inspections," he said.

The White House Friday rejected any parallels between its Iran rhetoric and the run-up to the Iraq invasion, after fresh sanctions on Tehran and escalating US warnings fueled comparisons to the months before the 2003 invasion.

"We are absolutely committed to a diplomatic process," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=86336

[arcos]

7. "We are absolutely commited to a diplomatic process", and there are no parallels, huh?

So, they're admitting they were not committed to a diplomatic process regarding Iraq? :eyes:

[Arkansas Granny]

10. Of course, they were committed to diplomacy before invading Iraq.

And look what a resounding success that has been.

About the only change they've made to the script is changing from WMD's to nukes. Other than that, it sounds like the same old song and dance.

:scared:

[Webster Green]

13. The Iraq script was complete with threats of "mushroom clouds"..

..and uranium......(chimp in a real scary voice)..........from Africa.

The script is the same.

[Arkansas Granny]

14. Yes, you're right. I had forgotten the "mushroom cloud" references.

I felt for months before the Iraq invasion that there was nothing Saddam could do to keep Bush from invading and I'm getting the same feelings now. I expect any day to hear him make the announcement that we have started dropping bombs.

[rodeodance]

8. Facts do not seem to matter.

[Spurt]

9. K&R

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. If I were hearing the IAEA, I'd stay out of small planes.

just thinkin,

[bdamomma]

12. this from Truthout.org

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102907K.shtml


"My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire," ElBaradei added.


I hope the UN holds firm. :scared:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. The UN is supposed to PREVENT war between nations

I never imagined that they would be so busy trying to prevent US (and Israel) from launching a string of of "preventative" wars against other countries. The US and the Soviet Union amazingly averted war (and a nuclear holocaust) for 50+ years thanks to global institutions like the UN and years of active diplomacy with a "totalitarian" regime and come 2002 we are suddenly supposed to believe that not only do two tiny & poor ME countries now threaten the rest of the civilized world with their non-existent (Iraq) and as-of yet unproven (Iran) WMD but also that diplomacy is simply not possible when dealing with them (hint: diplomacy is NOT going to work if you make it your policy to NOT try to talk to your "enemies")? Since when does the mere possession of nuclear weapons by a given country (that WE don't like, of course) mean that the country (and their civilian populations lest we forget) are suddenly fair game for bombing runs anyway?