ANALYSIS: Iran's delay tactics include denying, lying, refusing

[bemildred]

Iranian delay tactics continue. They make a pretense of cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They show them this or that document. They respond truthfully to this or that question and go back to their malevolent ways. They deny. They lie. They refuse to respond, or they claim that the material they are shown is fabricated. Thus Iran's evasive tactics have persisted for five years, all with the goal of playing for time. It seeks to deflect pressures and to please at least some governments, particularly Russia and China, considered the weak links in the international effort of the major powers, to expose the Iranian deceit and impose more sanctions.

The new IAEA report - 15 reports have already been written about Iran's nuclear project - like its predecessors, finds it hard to decide where Iran is headed; whether its nuclear plans are really for peaceful purposes as it claims, or in order to develop a nuclear weapon, as the United States, the European Union and Israel claim, and as at least some of the findings attest, in the present report as well.

To what end did Iran secretly purchase Pulonium 210, if not to manufacture a nuclear warhead? Why did Iran experiment with particularly high-powered explosives if not to test its capability in the chain reaction? Why did it purchase thousands of magnets abroad and not report them? Why was it found to possess blueprints for the manufacture of a nuclear warhead ? Why is Iran engaging in uranium enrichment, if not to have full control over the fuel cycle so as to manufacture highly enriched uranium itself? All this is in addition to many other discoveries made possible only by precise intelligence that anonymous intelligence agencies trubled to pass on to the IAEA so it could verify it with Iran. Not every part of the report is so bleak, however. The inspectors also found that Iran is having trouble operating the centrifuges in the unranium-enrichment facility at Natanz. Israeli and U.S. officials are mad at IAEA chief Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who time after time has been willing to fall into the Iranian trap. But the truth is that he has few options. The organization is a reflection of the international community. Its formulations - combining diplomatic and technical language - must satisfy the contrasting interests of the West, Russia and China, and the bloc of non-aligned countries, while being professionally faithful to what its inspectors discover.

The IAEA has no independent intelligence capabilities. It has no powers of coercion; the cooperation of IAEA members is voluntary. Thus, its reports read like intelligence reports, with their "on the one hand..." and "on the other hand..." They contain everything. Both soft censure of Iran as well as praise.

Edit: this guy seems upset. What is "Pulonium 210"?


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/957170.html

[oberliner]

1. What is polonium-210?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6181688.stm

What is polonium-210?

It is a naturally occurring radioactive material that emits highly hazardous alpha (positively charged) particles.

It was first discovered by Marie Curie at the end of the 19th century.

There are very small amounts of polonium-210 in the soil and in the atmosphere, and everyone has a small amount of it in their body.

But at high doses, it damages tissues and organs.

However the substance, historically called radium F, is very hard for doctors to identify.

Philip Walker, professor of physics, University of Surrey said: "This seems to have been a substance carefully chosen for its ability to be hard to detect in a person who has ingested it."

[bemildred]

2. No, that's "Pulonium 210".

I know what Polonium 210 is, even what Plutonium 244 is, but he seems to have been in a hurry.

It's sort of interesting that if I google Plutonium 210 I get a bunch of stuff about Polonium instead.

[oberliner]

3. Maybe just a typo or an alternate spelling?

Pretty sure that Polonium 210 and Pulonium 210 are the same thing.

Is that not what was being referenced?

[bemildred]

4. Almost certainly.

Although I don't know where he got that from. I know the Iranians are fooling with uranium. I had not heard they were hot for Polonium. I was considering he meant Plutonium, which would make more sense if he was talking about nuclear capabilities, though I'm not expert in that stuff. But I was commenting on the fact that he didn't spend much time editing.