Head of UN IAEA says ‘No Evidence’ that Iran is Making Nuclear Weapons
October 29th 2007 23:56
Head of UN IAEA says ‘No Evidence’ that Iran is Making Nuclear Weapons
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei has declared that he can see no evidence that Iran has a Nuclear Weapons program. This was not a throwaway line but comes after months of thorough inspections within Iran. ElBaradei also chided the Bush Administration for what he called ‘Anti-Iranian Rhetoric’ that making negotiation more difficult.
Ref:
ElBaradei on Sunday "said there is no evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program
This brings the IAEA indirect conflict with the position of the Bush Administration who have on several occasions accused Iran of building a nuclear arsenal. One recent example was when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded publically that Iran give up its ‘Nuclear Ambitions’ before they are willing to enter into talks with the regime. George Bush was recently reported as warning that Iran could spark WW3. There has also been a series of saber rattling exercises that include the threat to bomb the facilities that under construction in Iran with the newly build MOB (Mother of all Bombs). The MOB is said to be the largest conventional explosive weapon ever built and is designed to destroy deep underground bunkers. Iran has threatened that if is attacked it would strike back with full force and has specifically developed weapons for the US naval ships in the Gulf. The sabers continue to rattle but so far they have not been drawn.
Why is the Bush Administration thinking about being involved in another costly battle with a nation that would more than certainly strike back? The lessons of Iraq seemed to have been wasted upon the Bush administration despite taking his nation to Iraq to NOT find any WMDs. Yet despite the statement by the IAEA the Bush Administration seems to want to press ahead with moves toward a strike or to have Israel strike.
The issue at hand is whether the IAEA statement will in time diffuse the situation or be totally ignored. It is unlikely that Hawkish NeoCons like Dick Cheney will advise Bush to slow down or accept this assessment. Similar assessments from weapon inspectors in Iraq were ignored before the war broke out.
The history of distrust between the US and Iran has loomed for many decades. The history of post War Iran included the hostage drama of the 1970’s and the US supported Coup in. It is unlikely that the two nations will entirely trust each other lightly.
The cost of an attack on Iran could be immeasurable and escalate to other locations in the Middle East like Israel and Iraq. The question of whether Iran could become a series nuclear power seems to be overstated by the Bush administration. Iran can only refine Uranium to about 8% purity whereas an atomic weapon would require enrichment of about 90%. A delivery system like a ballistic missile would also be required. The question of a dirt bomb being given to Terrorists by Iran required a leap of faith into the implausible. Dirty bombs are made up of low grade nuclear material and are more of a psychological threat than an effective means of destruction. The US abandoned its dirty bomb programs because they were deemed ineffective, easy to contain and clean up. Talk of them killing thousands is just fanciful science fiction. Any well made conventional weapon would be much more effective.
In the coming weeks will know what direction this confrontation will take. Right now the sabers are rattling as they seem to be perpetually doing in the Middle East. Will the sword of war be drawn?
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei has declared that he can see no evidence that Iran has a Nuclear Weapons program. This was not a throwaway line but comes after months of thorough inspections within Iran. ElBaradei also chided the Bush Administration for what he called ‘Anti-Iranian Rhetoric’ that making negotiation more difficult.
Ref:
ElBaradei on Sunday "said there is no evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program
This brings the IAEA indirect conflict with the position of the Bush Administration who have on several occasions accused Iran of building a nuclear arsenal. One recent example was when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded publically that Iran give up its ‘Nuclear Ambitions’ before they are willing to enter into talks with the regime. George Bush was recently reported as warning that Iran could spark WW3. There has also been a series of saber rattling exercises that include the threat to bomb the facilities that under construction in Iran with the newly build MOB (Mother of all Bombs). The MOB is said to be the largest conventional explosive weapon ever built and is designed to destroy deep underground bunkers. Iran has threatened that if is attacked it would strike back with full force and has specifically developed weapons for the US naval ships in the Gulf. The sabers continue to rattle but so far they have not been drawn.
Why is the Bush Administration thinking about being involved in another costly battle with a nation that would more than certainly strike back? The lessons of Iraq seemed to have been wasted upon the Bush administration despite taking his nation to Iraq to NOT find any WMDs. Yet despite the statement by the IAEA the Bush Administration seems to want to press ahead with moves toward a strike or to have Israel strike.
The issue at hand is whether the IAEA statement will in time diffuse the situation or be totally ignored. It is unlikely that Hawkish NeoCons like Dick Cheney will advise Bush to slow down or accept this assessment. Similar assessments from weapon inspectors in Iraq were ignored before the war broke out.
The history of distrust between the US and Iran has loomed for many decades. The history of post War Iran included the hostage drama of the 1970’s and the US supported Coup in. It is unlikely that the two nations will entirely trust each other lightly.
The cost of an attack on Iran could be immeasurable and escalate to other locations in the Middle East like Israel and Iraq. The question of whether Iran could become a series nuclear power seems to be overstated by the Bush administration. Iran can only refine Uranium to about 8% purity whereas an atomic weapon would require enrichment of about 90%. A delivery system like a ballistic missile would also be required. The question of a dirt bomb being given to Terrorists by Iran required a leap of faith into the implausible. Dirty bombs are made up of low grade nuclear material and are more of a psychological threat than an effective means of destruction. The US abandoned its dirty bomb programs because they were deemed ineffective, easy to contain and clean up. Talk of them killing thousands is just fanciful science fiction. Any well made conventional weapon would be much more effective.
In the coming weeks will know what direction this confrontation will take. Right now the sabers are rattling as they seem to be perpetually doing in the Middle East. Will the sword of war be drawn?
| 71 |
| Vote |
Comments (4)
Add Comments
Read More
